translating the translators · 4/15/2011 · in this thesis, i will trace the development and...
TRANSCRIPT
Translating the Translators:
Following the Development of Actor-Network Theory
Susanna Evarts
First Reader: Cornel Ban, PhD, JD
Second Reader:
Gianpaolo Baiocchi, PhD
Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment for the degree of BACHELOR OF ARTS in DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
Development Studies Brown University
April 15, 2011
__________________________________ SUSANNA EVARTS
__________________________________ Cornel Ban, PhD, JD
__________________________________ Gianpaolo Baiocchi, PhD
© Susanna Evarts, 2011
Abstract In this thesis, I will trace the development and spread of Actor-Network Theory (ANT), which emerged as a way of studying technological change and innovation in the early 1980s and was conceived of by three main theorists: Bruno Latour, Michel Callon, and John Law. Since then, however, it has evolved and been used in many disciplines, which has fundamentally changed to what and how it is employed. There have been few previous studies that examine its spread using empirical methods, and the ones that do, only focus on one particular sub-discipline. As such, little is actually known about how ANT moved from its initial birthplace in Europe to become one of the most influential approaches in Science and Technology Studies (STS). Additionally, while ANT first started in Europe, it is cited most in the United States, a phenomenon that has also eluded previous research.
This study is important to the field of Development Studies, as both are inherently interdisciplinary approaches to studying a heterogeneous mix of entities. Additionally, ANT has much to offer Development Studies research; in particular ANT’s reconceptualization of how power becomes enacted, which forces the researcher to avoid short cuts in explaining inequalities and identities is quite relevant to development research. By eschewing structuralist approaches that tend to fall into the macro/micro trap, ANT is able to track how and where power inequalities and “systemic” inequalities reside. Such research moves slowly, but can elucidate much about power that is often taken for granted.
Three different methods were used to trace ANT’s progression and transition: the first catalogued and described the intellectual development and internal translations of ANT; the second used a bibliometric analysis to follow the actors carrying ANT from one country, discipline, or year to another; and finally, the third method involved interviewing people familiar with ANT on how they thought ANT did or did not fit into their discipline, institution, and personal research.
The bibliometric analysis traces scholarly publications that have cited at least one of Callon, Latour, or Law’s works from 1973 to 2010. Across all countries, I followed the actors, finding that ANT was cited moderately during the 1980s, significantly during the 1990s, and super significantly during the 2000s. Additionally, I parse out the changes over time within the United States on how ANT has been cited in different localities, subject areas, institutions, and journals. I find that there are similarities between all three authors in terms of where, when, and by whom they are cited, falling along disciplinary, institutional, and academic journal lines.
The goal of this thesis is to add to the base of knowledge of ANT, along with help to instigate further interest in and awareness of ANT’s role in many disciplines. As it has much to offer the Development Studies field, I am to provide a sort of travel guide for future students and researchers that wish to introduce the two disciplines.
i
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................ v
CHAPTER 1: Introduction ....................................................................................... 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 Research Question ................................................................................................................................. 4 Literature Review .................................................................................................................................. 5
Bibliometric/Citation Analysis ............................................................................................... 5 The Use of Citation Counts ............................................................................................................. 6 Applicability of Citation Counts for this Study ................................................................................ 11
Previous Studies on ANT’s Dispersion ................................................................................. 14 Case Selection and Methodology ........................................................................................................... 17 Why Care? .......................................................................................................................................... 18 Limitations and Proposed Thesis Structure ............................................................................................ 20
CHAPTER 2: The Theoretical Evolution and Translations of ANT .................................. 23 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 23 Actors, Networks, and Theory .............................................................................................................. 24 Genealogy of ANT by Way of STS ....................................................................................................... 26
Prelude to an Inter-discipline, or the Beginnings of STS ........................................................ 27 Structural Functionalism ...................................................................................................... 32 The Kuhnian Revolution ..................................................................................................... 34 The Strong Programme ........................................................................................................ 35 Studies on Technology ......................................................................................................... 37 Science and Technology Studies (STS) ................................................................................. 39 Social Construction ............................................................................................................. 41
Evolution Within ANT ........................................................................................................................ 42 Formation of a Heterogeneous Network, or Beginnings up to ANT 1990 .............................. 43 Expansion of a Heterogeneous Network, or ANT 1990 to Post-ANT .................................... 48
Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 54
CHAPTER 3: ANT’s Transatlantic Voyage ................................................................ 61 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 61 Methodology and Case Selection ........................................................................................................... 63 On ANT’s Spread Across Time ............................................................................................................. 66 On ANT’s International Travels ........................................................................................................... 68 On ANT’s Disciplinary Moves ............................................................................................................. 70 Specific Subject Areas ........................................................................................................................... 75
Sociology ............................................................................................................................ 75 History and Philosophy of Science ....................................................................................... 76 Geography .......................................................................................................................... 77 Management ....................................................................................................................... 78 Environmental Studies ......................................................................................................... 79 Information Science and Library Science .............................................................................. 80
Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 81
CHAPTER 4: ANTs in the U.S. Academic Melting Pot ................................................. 85 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 85
ii
Methodology and Case Selection ........................................................................................................... 86 Temporal Diffusion of ANT within the United States ............................................................................. 88 Subject Area Diffusion of ANT within the United States ......................................................................... 90 Impact of ANT within the United States ............................................................................................... 94
Journals by Subject Area ...................................................................................................... 94 History and Philosophy of Science ................................................................................................. 95 Sociology ....................................................................................................................................... 96 Anthropology ................................................................................................................................ 97 Geography ..................................................................................................................................... 98 Management ................................................................................................................................. 99 Information Science and Library Science ........................................................................................ 99
Institutions by Subject Area ............................................................................................... 100 History and Philosophy of Science ............................................................................................... 101 Sociology ..................................................................................................................................... 103 Anthropology .............................................................................................................................. 105 Geography ................................................................................................................................... 106 Management ............................................................................................................................... 108 Information Science and Library Science ...................................................................................... 109
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 110
CHAPTER 5: Conclusion ..................................................................................... 114
WORKS CITED ................................................................................................ 121
APPENDIX A: Tables, Graphs, and Figures ............................................................. 132
APPENDIX B: Michel Callon’s Works Included in Analysis ......................................... 173
APPENDIX C: Bruno Latour’s Works Included in Analysis .......................................... 184
APPENDIX D: John Law’s Works Included in Analysis .............................................. 197
APPENDIX E: Semi-Structured Interview Questions ................................................... 204 Role of ANT in their own research and how they first heard of it ............................................................ 204 What they think of ANT as a method .................................................................................................. 204 ANT in their subject area(s) ................................................................................................................. 204 ANT in their institution ...................................................................................................................... 205 ANT and Funding ............................................................................................................................. 205 How they Cite Theories and Methods in General ................................................................................... 205
iii
Graphs, Charts, and Tables Graphs Graph 1: Callon, Latour, Law: Citations per Year 1973-2010 ................................................................................... 137 Graph 2: Callon, Latour, and Law: Sociology by Country 1973-2010 ...................................................................... 141 Graph 3: Callon and Law: Sociology by Country 1973-2010 ................................................................................... 142 Graph 4: Callon, Latour, and Law: History and Philosophy of Science by Country ................................................. 142 Graph 5: Callon and Law: History and Philosophy of Science by Country .............................................................. 143 Graph 6: Callon, Latour, and Law: Geography by Country ....................................................................................... 143 Graph 7: Callon and Law: Geography by Country .................................................................................................... 144 Graph 8: Callon, Latour, and Law: Management by Country ................................................................................... 144 Graph 9: Callon and Law: Management by Country ................................................................................................. 145 Graph 10: Callon, Latour, and Law: Environmental Studies by Country .................................................................. 145 Graph 11: Callon and Law: Environmental Studies by Country ............................................................................... 146 Graph 12: Callon, Latour, and Law: Information Science and Library Science by Country ..................................... 146 Graph 13: Callon and Law: Information Science and Library Science by Country .................................................. 147 Graph 14: Callon, Latour, and Law: Citations per Year in the USA 1973-2010 ....................................................... 147 Graph 15: Michel Callon: Citations per Year in the USA 1973-2010 ....................................................................... 148 Graph 16: Bruno Latour: Citations per Year in the USA 1973-2010 ........................................................................ 149 Graph 17: John Law: Citations per Year in the USA 1973-2010 .............................................................................. 149 Graph 18: Callon, Latour, and Law: Top Ten Subject Areas in USA According to Citation ................................... 150 Graph 19: Callon and Law: Top Ten Subject Areas in USA According to Citation ................................................. 150 Graph 20: Callon, Latour, and Law: Top Ten Journals in the History and Philosophy of Science ........................... 153 Graph 21: Callon, Latour, and Law: Top Ten Journals in Sociology (in USA) ........................................................ 154 Graph 22: Callon, Latour, and Law: Top Ten Journals in Anthropology (in USA) .................................................. 155 Graph 23: Callon, Latour, and Law: Top Ten Journals in Geography (in USA) ....................................................... 156 Graph 24: Callon, Latour, and Law: Top Ten Journals in Management (in USA) .................................................... 157 Graph 25: Callon, Latour, and Law: Top Ten Journals in Information Science & Library Science (in USA) ......... 158 Graph 26: Callon, Latour, and Law: Top Ten Institutions in USA for History and Philosophy of Science ............. 159 Graph 27: Callon and Law: Top Ten Institutions in USA for History and Philosophy of Science ........................... 160 Graph 28: Callon, Latour, and Law: Top Ten Institutions in USA for Sociology ..................................................... 163 Graph 29: Callon and Law: Top Ten Institutions in USA for Sociology .................................................................. 164 Graph 30: Callon, Latour, and Law: Top Ten Institutions in USA for Anthropology ............................................... 165 Graph 31: Callon and Law: Top Ten Institutions in USA for Anthropology ............................................................ 166 Graph 32: Callon, Latour, and Law: Top Ten Institutions in USA for Geography ................................................... 167 Graph 33: Callon and Law: Top Ten Institutions in USA for Geography ................................................................. 168 Graph 34: Callon, Latour, and Law: Top Ten Institutions in USA for Management ................................................ 169 Graph 35: Callon and Law: Top Ten Institutions in USA for Management .............................................................. 170 Graph 36: Callon, Latour, and Law: Top Ten Institutions in USA for Information Science & Library Science ...... 171 Graph 37: Callon and Law: Top Ten Institutions in USA for Information Science & Library Science .................... 172 Charts Chart 1: Bruno Latour: Start Years for Top Six Subject Areas ................................................................................. 139 Chart 2: Michel Callon: Start Years for Top Six Subject Areas ................................................................................ 140 Chart 3: John Law: Starting Years for Top Six Subject Areas .................................................................................. 141 Chart 4: Callon: Top Five Subject Areas in USA by Start Year 1973-2010 ............................................................. 151 Chart 5: Latour: Top Five Subject Areas in USA by Start Year 1973-2010 ............................................................. 151
iv
Chart 6: Law: Top Five Subject Areas in USA by Start Year 1973-2010 ................................................................. 152 Tables Table 1: Data Collection for ISI Web of Science Data Collection ............................................................................ 132 Table 2: Callon and Law Top 11 Countries by Total Citations 1973-2011 ............................................................... 137 Table 3: Top 11 countries by total citations from 1973-2011 .................................................................................... 138 Table 4: Bruno Latour: Citations for Top Ten Subject Areas .................................................................................... 138 Table 5: Callon: Top Ten Subject Areas .................................................................................................................... 139 Table 6: John Law: Top Ten Subject Areas ............................................................................................................... 140 Table 7: Data Collection for ISI Web of Science Data Collection ............................................................................ 148 Table 8: Percent of total U.S. subject area citations in one of the top ten journals .................................................... 152 Table 9: Top Ten Journals in the History and Philosophy of Science by Author, 1973-2011 .................................. 153 Table 10: Top Ten Journals in Sociology by Author, 1973-2011 .............................................................................. 154 Table 11: Top Ten Journals in Anthropology by Author, 1973-2011 ....................................................................... 155 Table 12: Top Ten Journals in Geography by Author, 1973-2011 ............................................................................ 156 Table 13: Top Ten Journals in Management by Author, 1973-2011 ......................................................................... 157 Table 14: Top Ten Journals in Information Science & Library Science by Author, 1973-2011 ............................... 158 Table 15: Callon, Latour, and Law: History and Philosophy of Science by Institution (in USA) ............................. 159 Table 16: Callon and Law: History and Philosophy of Science by Institution (in USA) .......................................... 160 Table 17: Compiled list of the top ten institutions in the top six subject areas .......................................................... 161 Table 18: Callon, Latour, and Law: Sociology by Institution (in USA) .................................................................... 163 Table 19: Callon and Law: Sociology by Institution (in USA) .................................................................................. 164 Table 20: Callon, Latour, and Law: Anthropology by Institution (in USA) .............................................................. 165 Table 21: Callon and Law: Anthropology by Institution (in USA) ........................................................................... 166 Table 22: Callon, Latour, and Law: Geography by Institution (in USA) .................................................................. 167 Table 23: Callon and Law: Geography by Institution (in USA) ................................................................................ 168 Table 24: Callon, Latour, and Law: Management by Institution (in USA) ............................................................... 169 Table 25: Callon and Law: Management by Institution (in USA) ............................................................................. 170 Table 26: Callon, Latour, and Law: Information Sciences and Library Sciences by Institution (in USA) ............... 171 Table 27: Callon and Law: Information Sciences and Library Sciences by Institution (in USA) ............................. 172 Figures Figure 1: The Origins of Science and Technology Studies ........................................................................................ 133 Figure 2: First Strand of STS – Institutionalization of Science and Technology ...................................................... 134 Figure 3: Figure Showing the Development of the Production of Scientific and Technological Knowledge ........... 135 Figure 4: Translations Within ANT ........................................................................................................................... 136
v
Acknowledgements This thesis would not have been possible without the help and support of Cornel Ban, who encouraged me to test new waters by attempting a non-traditional Development Studies thesis. If he had not turned me onto Actor-Network Theory and the works of Michel Callon, Bruno Latour, and John Law, I would never have engaged as deeply as I have with this material. His patience with me while I sorted through ideas and proposals was admirable and I am very grateful. Additionally, I would like to thank Gianpaolo Baiocchi, who provided a wonderful environment with which to interact with ANT in his Fall 2010 seminar. Without that class, I never would have made it the next step down the road toward writing this thesis—it is a really great experience to take a class in which everyone critically engages with one specific theory. I learned so much from everyone in the seminar and I am very grateful to both Gianpaolo and all the members of that class. I am deeply grateful to the five professors and students at Brown who were willing to let me interview them about ANT. It was really great to get out of my myopic understanding of the approach and hear the really original and insightful comments you provided and for that I am quite grateful: Cornel Ban, Sharon Krause, Brad Sekedat, Diana Graizbord, and Catherine Bliss. Finally, I am perhaps most indebted to my parents, Rebecca and James Evarts, who have been truly supportive of me throughout this process, having more faith in my ability than I sometimes had.
1
CHAPTER 1: Introduction
P[rofessor]: So…I take it you are a bit lost? S[tudent]: Well, yes. I am finding it difficult, I have to say, to apply Actor Network Theory to my
case study on organizations. P[rofessor]: No wonder! It isn’t applicable to anything.1
Introduction While Actor-Network Theory (ANT) may not be directly applicable to anything, it is certainly
employable. First conceived in Paris during the late 1970s and early 1980s by Michel Callon,
Bruno Latour, and John Law, ANT has since been both seducing and infuriating authors from a
vast range of disciplines. Provocative yet also substantive, it is easy to become enrolled in
ANT’s logic and propositions, only to step back frustrated and alarmed by where you have ended
up. In short, ANT has the captivating ability to simultaneously apply both to everything and to
nothing, to explain the world while also tearing it down.
Evolving out of Science and Technology Studies (STS), ANT is less of a theory and more
of an approach, or as Latour puts it, ANT is “a theory, and a strong one I think, but about how to
study things, or rather how not to study them—or rather, how to let the actors have some room to
express themselves.”2 ANT is a refusal to study controversies and changing phenomena using the
structuralist toolkit, which places more emphasis on explaining why something happens, while
1 Page 141. Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, USA. 2 Page 142. Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, USA.
2
ANT steps back, placing more emphasis on explaining how something did or did not come into
being.
Actor-Network Theory is generally attributed to three principle authors: Michel Callon,3
Bruno Latour,4 and John Law.5 While its roots are in the study of science and technology,
especially through ethnographic studies on laboratories that focus on how science is created, it
has evolved in ways that make it quite relevant (although not applicable) to many different
subject areas. The various usages of ANT beyond STS have impacted greatly how ANT is
conceived and in which areas it can be used. Much like what it tends to describe, ANT is a
heterogeneous network of approaches and anti-approaches that have changed and translated over
time, making it impossible to define it in a singular manner. It studies change, but in a way that
captures the constant indeterminacy of any transformation. In short, ANT is a constructivist
approach that requires hard empirical evidence, an action theory that allows all entities—human
and non-human—to act and be traced.
By taking a symmetrical approach to the study of both human and non-human actors,
ANT allows the researcher to follow the networks (and sub-networks) that emerge around a
certain controversy—at first ANT was primarily concerned with sociotechnical controversies,6
3 e.g., Callon, Michel. 1986. "Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay." Pp. 196-223 in Power, action and belief: a new sociology of knowledge?, Sociological Review Monograph, edited by J. Law. London: Routledge. 4 e.g., Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 5 e.g., Law, John. 1987. "Technology and Heterogeneous Engineering: The Case Portuguese Expansion." Pp. 111-134 in The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, edited by W. Bijker, T. Hughes, and T. Pinch. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 6 e.g., Callon, Michel. 1986. "Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay." Pp. 196-223 in Power, action and belief: a new sociology of knowledge?, Sociological Review Monograph, edited by J. Law. London: Routledge; Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; Latour, Bruno. 1996. Aramis, or the Love of Technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; Law, John. 1987. "Technology and Heterogeneous Engineering: The Case Portuguese Expansion." Pp. 111-134 in The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, edited by W. Bijker, T. Hughes, and T. Pinch. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3
but has since broadened its scope to include the social sphere.7 Defining objects as always in
relation to the network in which they are embedded is central to ANT, and is what John Law
calls the relational materiality that underpins ANT’s ontology.8 Actors and actants (including
people, objects, innovations, and ideas) are always changing with regard to the other
actors/actants that appear in their network.9 Thus, a symmetrical approach makes it possible to
account for ideas and objects developing their own power and persuasiveness—they can
transform from something that is wielded by a human agent to one that, by virtue of the life force
added to it by human actors, develops its own agency.10
The process of translation is central to ANT, and describes how the identities of actors,
their interactions, and the options given to each at various points in a particular controversy get
constructed and negotiated. Callon describes this process as having four steps: problematization,
interessement, enrolment, and mobilization.11 He emphasizes the importance of change over
time, in that no social (or natural) role or relationship should be taken for granted—they are
always in the process of being redefined; this process of redefinition is itself one of displacement
and translation. Thus, ANT proposes a different way to view power and the processes through
which power gets translated from many to a few, and in so doing, contributes to addressing the
7 Callon, Michel and John Law. 1997. "After the individual in society: lessons on collectivity from science, technology and society." Canadian Journal of Sociology 22:11; Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, USA. 8 Sismondo, Sergio. 2010. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 9 Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 10 Latour, Bruno. 1996. Aramis, or the Love of Technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 11 Callon, Michel. 1986. "Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay." Pp. 196-223 in Power, action and belief: a new sociology of knowledge?, Sociological Review Monograph, edited by J. Law. London: Routledge.
4
question of why certain groups or people are given the power and right to represent groups and
actors of people.12
However, there are scant studies that systematically track the impact of ANT across
disciplines, countries, and time. In the spirit of Latour’s interpretation of the acronym ANT as
“perfectly fit for a blind, myopic, workaholic, trail-sniffing, and collective traveller,”13 this study
myopically tracks ANT’s migrations. While the acronym may fit ANT’s approach to research, a
more clinical comparison could be made about how it has moved through time and space: ANT
is a virus that has reached epidemic proportions. This comparison is presented with the best of
intents—any researcher would be thrilled at a viral-like progression of their ideas. Starting from
its epicenter in Paris, ANT has spread to many parts of the world, but has also changed
significantly during its travels, as it has been forced to adapt to its new surroundings while also
affecting them. Even its progression has characteristics of a viral epidemic: while it was initially
only cited moderately, throughout the 1990s and 2000s, the number of articles citing one of the
three principle authors has exploded. Thus, the following chapters can be seen as an
epidemiological report on the state of ANT, which is tracked by analyzing the actants that have
gotten infected, or more precisely, works that have cited one of the three authors.
Research Question
12 Callon, Michel. 1986. "Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay." Pp. 196-223 in Power, action and belief: a new sociology of knowledge?, Sociological Review Monograph, edited by J. Law. London: Routledge. 13 Page 9. Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, USA.
5
This thesis seeks to provide an analysis of the translation and spread of Actor-Network Theory, n
approach that itself studies the processes of translation and influence. ANT can provide a very
detailed and nuanced description of how controversies get resolved and how ideas succeed or fail
in the transition from the theoretical to the material or actual (with many changes and
translations in between). It is poised to have a great deal of influence in many subject areas that
have thus far failed to provide convincing accounts of how ideas are made more or less “real,”
making the present time ripe for analyzing where ANT is going, how it is getting there, and what
the processes are that make it possible. In short, this thesis tracks the translation of the
translators, focusing on how the works of Michel Callon, Bruno Latour, and John Law have
traveled across time, space, and subject areas.
How has ANT gone from being born in Paris, France in the early 1980s to becoming one
of the most prominent theories in STS today? How have these three authors taken part in this
process and how have those who have cited them used their work? How do the subject areas in
which ANT is used change over time and geographic boundaries? When did authors in certain
subject areas begin to employ ANT in their work?
More specifically, within the United States, how does ANT differ from its progression at
the international level? Which institutions and journals are most important in its spread? How
has the theory itself changed after its incorporation in so many different areas? What does this
mean for the future of ANT and its applicability?
Literature Review
Bibliometric/Citation Analysis
6
Bibliometric data has been used for over 100 years to evaluate, assess, and track the evolution of
subject areas, author collaboration, and geographic dispersion, among other applications. Since
its inception, bibliometric analysis has developed various strands that each focus on specific
applications in certain subjects, such as informetrics and scientometrics.14 The present literature
review will focus on bibliometric citation analysis, which the bibliometric scholar, R.N. Broadus,
defines as “the quantitative study of physical published units, or of bibliographic units, or of the
surrogates for either.”15 This thesis uses bibliometric methods to trace ANTs progression by
analyzing when, where, and by whom Callon, Latour, and Law’s works have been cited from
1973 to 2010.
The Use of Citation Counts Bibliometric analysis is used as a proxy for inferring other information about a subject or
authors progression—the actual citation counts are somewhat meaningless without being linked
to other actants in the network. What citation counts stand as a proxy for, however, is a subject
of considerable debate, as the question can be asked and answered in a variety of ways and from
a variety of disciplines.16 For example, one application of bibliometric data that authors, such as
McCain and White, promote is that co-citation analysis can be a good way to visualize the
evolution and change of an intellectual discipline over time.17 However, other authors may use
14 Broadus, R.N. 1987. "Toward a definition of "bibliometrics"." Scientometrics 12:373-379; Hood, W.W. and C.S. Wilson. 2001. "The literature of bibliometrics, scientometrics, and informetrics." Scientometrics 52:291-314. 15 Page 376. Broadus, R.N. 1987. "Toward a definition of "bibliometrics"." Scientometrics 12:373-379 16 Hood, W.W. and C.S. Wilson. 2001. "The literature of bibliometrics, scientometrics, and informetrics." Scientometrics 52:291-314; Broadus, R.N. 1987. "Toward a definition of "bibliometrics"." Scientometrics 12:373-379. 17 White, H.D. 1990. "Author co-citation analysis: Overview and defense." Scholarly communication and bibliometrics:84-106; White, H.D. and K.W. McCain. 1998. "Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of information science."; McCain, Katherine W. 1990. "Mapping authors in intellectual space: A technical overview." Journal of the American Society for Information Science 41:433-443; Estabrooks, C.A., L. Derksen, C. Winther, J.N. Lavis, S.D. Scott, L. Wallin, and J. Profetto-McGrath. 2008. "The intellectual structure and substance of the knowledge utilization field: a longitudinal author co-citation analysis, 1945 to 2004." Implementation Science 3:49.
7
bibliometric data to examine the possible exclusionary aspects of top journals, by analyzing from
which countries and institutions most accepted authors originated.18
Within the sociology of science, there are two principle camps that debate the
significance of citation counts and what they show: the structural functionalist (or Mertonian)
perspective and the constructivist (or Latourian) perspective.19 As each perspective is not wholly
concerned with citation counts, their conclusions on what citations indicate are nestled within a
larger and much more sophisticated theoretical understanding of the construction of science and
technology. The Mertonian perspective sees the goal of science as influenced by norms that
encourage the creation of knowledge in its purest form—thus, citations are the way that advances
in knowledge are claimed by researchers, constituting a reward system.20 The Latourian
perspective, on the other hand, sees science and technology as activities that are constantly
evolving (not rigidly bound by certain norms) and that while scientists may be studying
phenomena that exist outside of the social world, the products of that study are not themselves
natural—thus, in addition to a reward systems, citations are indicative of a meshing of social and
natural processes, constituting a rhetorical system.21
The Mertonian perspective on citations dates prior to the Latourian perspective and
focuses on the larger structural conditions making citations an integral part of scientific
literature.22 From the Mertonian perspective, citations are a form of property right, attaching a
18 Hodgson, Geoffrey M. and Harry Rothman. 1999. "The Editors and Authors of Economics Journals: a Case of Institutional Oligopoly?" The Economic Journal 109:165-186. 19 Cozzens (1989) proposes the communication system in which the article exists as a third system in which to analyze the use of citations, but concedes that this domain has been largely neglected by sociology, as it pertains more to communication and information science. Cozzens, S.E. 1989. "What do citations count? The rhetoric-first model." Scientometrics 15:437-447 20 Cozzens, S.E. 1989. "What do citations count? The rhetoric-first model." Scientometrics 15:437-447; Sismondo, Sergio. 2010. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd 21 Cozzens, S.E. 1989. "What do citations count? The rhetoric-first model." Scientometrics 15:437-447; Sismondo, Sergio. 2010. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd 22 Cozzens, S.E. 1989. "What do citations count? The rhetoric-first model." Scientometrics 15:437-447
8
claim to a now-public piece of knowledge, which helped a norm to develop around citing authors
for their work on a particular subject—in essence, the principle of giving credit where credit is
due. This norm is enforced by peer-reviewing practices in academic journals and by the
governing capabilities of the academic community after publication. While such enforcement
efforts obviously are not completely effective, the norm serves as a method of social control
within the scientific community, creating boundaries between the “good” and the “bad” practice
of science.23
Related to this perspective is Callon, Law, and Rip’s suggestion that citations serve as a
“war of words,” in which citations are used as a literary weapons in order to convince readers of
the author’s argument.24 This is similar to the rhetorical system in that citations serve as a means
to increase the author’s prestige and influence, but places more emphasis on how words are used
to manipulate the desired response.25 Thus, it bridges the gap between a reward system
perspective and a rhetorical system perspective.
When citations are viewed from a rhetorical or Latourian perspective, they can be seen as
symbolic indicators, means of persuasion, or attempts to delineate what is and is not a
contestable fact within the paper’s argument. Henry G. Small argues that citations stand in as
shorthand proxies for bigger ideas that the authors want to use in their argument, depicting them
as concept symbols or constituting a symbol making process.26 Gilbert conceives of citations as
forms of persuasion that are intended to make the reader believe in the argument, by, for
example, citing elite authors in order to affiliate their argument with a more credible and widely
23 Cozzens, S.E. 1989. "What do citations count? The rhetoric-first model." Scientometrics 15:437-447 24 Callon, Michel, John Law, and Arie Rip. 1986. Mapping the dynamics of science and technology: Sociology of science in the real world. London: Macmillan. 25 Cozzens, S.E. 1989. "What do citations count? The rhetoric-first model." Scientometrics 15:437-447. 26 Small, Henry G. 1978. "Cited Documents as Concept Symbols." Social Studies of Science 8:327-340.
9
accepted one.27 Last, Latour and Woolgar argue that citations are used for a complex variety of
reasons and in many ways, showing how they are employed in different ways depending on
whether the author is trying to convince the reader that the cited fact is more or less of a fact.28
For example, if an author wanted to lend credence to an argument similar to his or her own, s/he
would cite the previous work in a favorable light, while doing the opposite to a fact that s/he
wanted to discredit.
The discussion of whether articles will cite previous articles within the reward versus
rhetorical perspectives only indicates, as Cozzens notes, that there will be citations in scientific
articles—a conclusion that fails to address fully the issue of what citation counts depict.29 To
answer this question more completely, it is necessary to address how to predict whether or not
certain articles will be cited. To do this, it is helpful to return to the analytically distinct
categories (although in practice quite mixed) of the reward and the rhetorical systems.
The reward system sees citation counts as providing relatively objective evaluations of
research, according to how many times, by whom, and where a research article has been cited.
This perspective predicts that articles will be cited more often if they are already well known and
well regarded, if the institution from which the research originates is more prestigious, and if the
research is marketed though aggressive means at conferences and other academic venues.30
However, the rhetorical perspective takes a more nuanced approach to the question of
citation behaviors, looking at other possible confounding factors underlying the actual merit of
the research conducted, refusing to take at face value the proposition that better research is cited
27 Gilbert, G. Nigel. 1977. "Referencing as Persuasion." Social Studies of Science 7:113-122. 28 Latour, Bruno and Steve Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory life: the social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications; Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 29 Cozzens, S.E. 1989. "What do citations count? The rhetoric-first model." Scientometrics 15:437-447 30 Cozzens, S.E. 1989. "What do citations count? The rhetoric-first model." Scientometrics 15:437-447
10
more, as the reward system advocates are more likely to do. Scholars in this arena are more
likely to address differences in the types of papers with regard to how much they are cited;31 the
rhetorical convenience of certain articles that makes them easier to incorporate into an argument,
such as review articles;32 how the article connects to the contemporary research climate (which
can lower its density of citations, altering the co-citation maps);33 and last, how certain facts can
become so well accepted that they undergo what Garfield calls, “obliteration by incorporation,”34
or what Latour calls, being black-boxed.35
While a strictly normative or reward perspective of how science and technology are
created has been largely rejected within STS, revised versions remain used in fields principally
concerned with the metrics of citation counts. In fact, the bibliometric scholar, T. Luukkonen,
argues that the bibliometric community has largely ignored Latour’s theory of citations, loosely
representing the wider constructivist and rhetorical perspective on citation counts—a disjoint that
the author claims is detrimental to both disciplines.36 However, one need not necessarily just rely
on rhetorical bibliometric analysis, such as co-word analysis.37 Luukkonen further points out that,
31 Porter, A.L., D.E. Chubin, and X.Y. Jin. 1988. "Citations and scientific progress: comparing bibliometric measures with scientist judgments." Scientometrics 13:103-124. 32 Porter, A.L., D.E. Chubin, and X.Y. Jin. 1988. "Citations and scientific progress: comparing bibliometric measures with scientist judgments." Scientometrics 13:103-124; Cozzens, S.E. 1989. "What do citations count? The rhetoric-first model." Scientometrics 15:437-447; Cozzens, Susan E. 1985. "Comparing the Sciences: Citation Context Analysis of Papers from Neuropharmacology and the Sociology of Science." Social Studies of Science 15:127-153. 33 Cozzens, S.E. 1988. "Life History of a Knowledge Claim." Science Communication 9:511. 34 Garfield, E. 1975. "The 'obliteration phenomenon' in science--and the advantage of being obliterated!" Current Contents 51:5-7. 35 Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; Cozzens, S.E. 1989. "What do citations count? The rhetoric-first model." Scientometrics 15:437-447 36 Luukkonen, T. 1997. "Why has Latour's theory of citations been ignored by the bibliometric community? Discussion of sociological interpretations of citation analysis." Scientometrics 38:27-37. 37 Callon et al. argue that co-word analysis provides a better indication of how sources are being used that does co-citation analysis. Callon, Michel, Jean-Pierre Courtial, W. Turner, and G. Chartron. 1985. "The Translation Model and its Exploitation through Co-word Analysis using Graphs for negotiating Research Policies." Pp. 24-27 in Communications 4S Meeting. Troy, USA; Callon, Michel, Jean-Pierre Courtial, and F. Laville. 1991. "Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of
11
“citation counts, not only co-citations, could be interpreted as an indication of the success of the
cited authors in being incorporated in actor-networks, and thus, as some sort of a measure of
social success.”38 While citation counts may not be a fully accurate portrayal of research quality
on their own, when viewed from an actor-network or translation perspective, it is possible to
gauge the article’s influence by taking a more holistic approach to what the number of citations
actually show. This thesis employs this last approach, as a rhetorical co-word analysis is beyond
the scope of the research.
Applicability of Citation Counts for this Study The current study takes an ego-centered approach to citations, meaning that articles citing the
works of specific authors are evaluated, as opposed to evaluating an entire field or discipline.39
An ego-centered citation analysis was chosen because ANT spans a variety of different fields,
making an analysis of one discipline only capture ANT’s evolution within that field. As this
study is focused on the growing multidisciplinary nature of ANT, such an approach would fail to
capture its spread both within and across various disciplines. While it has been suggested that the
Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) does not provide a complete autobiographical account of
authors’ works,40 if it is applied in a uniform manner (all authors’ citation counts are analyzed
using ISI), it matters less whether or not the entire corpus of published works is included.
polymer chemsitry." Scientometrics 22:155-205; Courtial, Jean-Pierre, Michel Callon, and M. Sigogneau. 1984. "Is indexing trustworthy? Classification of articles through co-word analysis." Journal of Information Science 9:47-56. 38 Page 33. Luukkonen, T. 1997. "Why has Latour's theory of citations been ignored by the bibliometric community? Discussion of sociological interpretations of citation analysis." Scientometrics 38:27-37. 39 Bar-Ilan, Judit. 2006. "An ego-centric citation analysis of the works of Michael O. Rabin based on multiple citation indexes." Information Processing & Management 42:1553-1566; White, Howard D. 2000. "Toward Ego-centered Citation Analysis." Pp. 475-96 in The Web of Knowledge: A Festschrift in Honor of Eugene Garfield, edited by B. Cronin and H. B. Atkins. Medford, NJ: Information Today. 40 Nisonger, Thomas E. 2004. "Citation Autobiography: An Investigation of ISI Database Coverage in Determining Author Citedness." College & Research Libraries 65:152-163.
12
Appendices B-D provide a bibliography of Callon, Latour, and Law’s works that have been
included in the analysis.
The failure of ISI to account completely for author’s works is only one of a variety of
criticisms of bibliographic analysis. A second criticism is the possible inclusion of other authors
into the study through homographs, which occur when another author’s first initial and last name
are the same as the author being analyzed.41 Possible homographs were taken into account in this
study, as each work included was manually checked in order to ensure accuracy.
Other criticisms of citation analysis focus more on how one interprets the data, as there
are many reasons authors cite articles, from cronyism, in which authors cite their friends and
colleagues; deliberate self citations (which are accounted for and removed from the present
study); ceremonial or perfunctory citations, in which authors cite works automatically without
actually having read them; and negative citations, which can artificially boost the citation count
of poorly conducted research.42 However, these criticisms can all be accounted for by conducting
bibliometric analyses in a reasonable and modest manner—when citations are not interpreted as
the inherent quality of certain research, bibliometric analysis can be quite illuminating. If a
constructivist or rhetorical approach is taken, then the multiple ways in which articles are cited is
actually a point in favor of citation analysis. For example, cronyism, while skewing the data if
research quality is equated with citation counts, when seen from a constructivist standpoint
shows that a close-knit group of researchers are working on similar topics, indicating a relatively
closed sub-discipline.
Most studies on ANT’s disciplinary progression tend to focus only on disciplines into
which ANT has filtered and are relatively short term in their analysis, making it necessary to
41 Meho, Lockman. 2007. "The rise and rise of citation analysis." Physics World. 42 Meho, Lockman. 2007. "The rise and rise of citation analysis." Physics World; Moed, Henk F. 2002. "The impact-factors debate: the ISI's uses and limits." Nature 415:731-732.
13
evaluate previous studies (not focused on ANT) that have evaluated disciplines over the course
of decades, as opposed to individual years. The most successful and robust studies that focus on
the progression and evolution of specific disciplines are those that take into account how author
and institution influence changes over time. For example, Podsakoff et al. note that in
management/organization studies, previous studies on discipline evolution are limited in their
scope, breadth, and depth, and thus shed little light on “what specific factors cause some
universities or scholars to be cited more than others.”43 Another study, by Estabrooks, et al., on
the over six decade long evolution of the knowledge utilization field, traces the development and
codification of knowledge utilization, showing that the field is dominated by one author and that
the three main sub fields within knowledge utilization (innovation diffusion, technology transfer,
and knowledge utilization) were joined by evidence-based medicine during the mid-1980s.44
Many studies aiming to “map” a scientific field use spatial methods to show the
connections between citations and co-authorship, attempting to illustrate the ligaments holding a
particular discipline together.45 This same mapping approach is used when analyzing the
geographic distribution of citations and co-authorship. Bibliometric evaluations that incorporate
the geographic distribution of authors tend to include more authors than the present study,
exploring how the authors collaborate in research and how they cite one another across and
within geographic boundaries.46
43 Page 645. Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, Nathan P. Podsakoff, and Daniel G. Bachrach. 2008. "Scholarly Influence in the Field of Management: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Determinants of University and Author Impact in the Management Literature in the Past Quarter Century." Journal of Management 34:641-720. 44 Estabrooks, C.A., L. Derksen, C. Winther, J.N. Lavis, S.D. Scott, L. Wallin, and J. Profetto-McGrath. 2008. "The intellectual structure and substance of the knowledge utilization field: a longitudinal author co-citation analysis, 1945 to 2004." Implementation Science 3:49. 45 Examples of this include: Lambiotte, R. and P. Panzarasa. 2009. "Communities, knowledge creation, and information diffusion." Journal of Informetrics 3:180-190; Small, Henry. 1999. "Visualizing science by citation mapping." Journal of the American Society for Information Science 50:799-813. 46 Examples of this include: Andersson, Åke E. and Olle Persson. 1993. "Networking scientists." The Annals of Regional Science 27:11-21; Leydesdorff, Loet and Olle Persson. 2010. "Mapping the Geography of Science:
14
Previous Studies on ANT’s Dispersion Studies on how ANT has spread across and been translated into subject areas are few and
far between. Many studies offhandedly state that, “[t]hroughout the 1980s and 1990s, ANT
figured prominently in studies published in sociology, technology, feminism, cultural geography,
organization and management, environmental planning, and health care,”47 but fail to provide
any empirical evidence to support such a sweeping claim. Other studies that do provide empirical
evidence regarding ANT’s diffusion and translation only focus on its incorporation within a
specific discipline or sub-discipline.48 Somewhat surprisingly, considering the enormous quantity
of literature on ANT, there appears to be no study that systematically track ANT’s evolution
across a variety of disciplines.
There has been a smattering of studies on the progression of ANT within specific
disciplines and sub-disciplines, such as management/organization studies, information studies,
and geography.49 These studies advocate not only an incorporation of ANT into their specific
Distribution Patterns and Networks of Relations among Cities and Institutes." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61:1622-1634; Small, H. and E. Garfield. 1985. "The geography of science: disciplinary and national mappings." Journal of Information Science 11:147-159; Zitt, M., R. Barrè, A. Sigogneau, and F. Laville. 1999. "Territorial concentration and evolution of science and technology activities in the European Union: a descriptive analysis." Research Policy 28:545-562; Leydesdorff, Loet and Caroline S. Wagner. 2008. "International collaboration in science and the formation of a core group." Journal of Informetrics 2:317-325; Frenken, Koen, Sjoerd Hardeman, and Jarno Hoekman. 2009. "Spatial scientometrics: Towards a cumulative research program." Journal of Informetrics 3:222-232; Cronin, Blaise. 2008. "On the epistemic significance of place." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59:1002-1006; Glänzel, Wolfgang. 2001. "National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations." Scientometrics 51:69-115; Börner, Katy, Shashikant Penumarthy, Mark Meiss, and Weimao Ke. 2006. "Mapping the diffusion of scholarly knowledge among major U.S. research institutions." Scientometrics 68:415-426; Batty, M. 2003. "The geography of scientific citation." Environment and Planning A 35:761-765; Jones, Benjamin F., Stefan Wuchty, and Brian Uzzi. 2008. "Multi-University Research Teams: Shifting Impact, Geography, and Stratification in Science." Science 322:1259-1262. 47 Page 1. Fenwick, Tara and Richard Edwards. 2010. "Introduction: Reclaiming and Renewing Actor Network Theory for Educational Research." Educational Philosophy and Theory:1-14. 48 Toennesen, Christian, Eamonn Molloy, and Claus D. Jacobs. 2006. "Lost in Translation? Actor-Network Theory and Organisation Studies." in European Group of Organizational Studies, 22nd EGOS Colloquium. Bergen, Norway. 49 In management/organization studies: McLean, Chris and John Hassard. 2004. "Symmetrical Absence/Symmetrical Absurdity: Critical Notes on the Production of Actor-Network Accounts." Journal of Management Studies 41:493-519; Steen, John, Catelijne Coopmans, and Jennifer Whyte. 2006. "Structure and
15
disciplines, but also argue that such an integration will help to flesh out and more fully develop
ANT. As Steen et al. point out, “confronting actor-network theory with the complexity of
strategic management will stretch and improve this area of sociology and maybe go part way to
addressing the imbalance of intellectual trade between strategy and its foundational
disciplines.”50 The bi-directional interaction Steen et al. propose gets at ANT’s ability to stretch
across disciplinary boundaries, allowing translation to occur on both sides.
The closest empirical examination of ANT’s spread is Toennesen, Molloy, and Jacobs’
article tracing how ANT has been translated from its original uses to the field of Organization
Studies (within Management Studies). It tracks the diffusion through journal articles and then
conducts a content analysis on the ways that ANT is translated in the journal articles, identifying
four different manners in which ANT is cited: simulating, emulating, crafting, and reasoning.
This study points to an important caveat to any study using bibliometric analysis, but not content
analysis: the four different ways in which ANT has been folded into management studies
indicate that it has been translated, as opposed to diffused. The authors note that ANT has been
successful in its travels within the management discipline, however, they are at pains to note that
there is “great diversity to be witnessed in its current manifestations in MOS [Management and
Organization Studies], ranging from ‘recipe-ANT‘ use, i.e. off-the-shelf applications of its most
‘operationable’ parts, to theoretical contributions that exhibit profound reflexive agency? Actor-network theory and strategic organization." Strategic Organization 4:303-312. In information studies: Mutch, Alistair. 2002. "Actors and Networks or Agents and Structures: Towards a Realist View of Information Systems." Organization 9:477-496; Tatnall, A. and A. Gilding. 1999. "Actor-network theory and information systems research." Pp. 955-966: Citeseer. In geography: Bosco, Fernando J. 2006. "Actor-network theory, networks, and relational approaches in human geography." Pp. 136-146 in Approaches to human geography, edited by S. C. Aitken and G. Valentine. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.; Murdoch, J. 1997. "Inhuman/nonhuman/human: actor-network theory and the potential for a dualistic and symmetrical perspective on nature and society." Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 15:731-756; Murdoch, Jonathan. 1998. "The spaces of actor-network theory." Geoforum 29:357-374; Murdoch, J. 2001. "Ecologising sociology: Actor-network theory, co-construction and the problem of human exemptionalism." Sociology 35:111-133; Murdoch, Jonathan. 2006. Post-structuralist geography: a guide to relational space. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd. 50 Page 309. Steen, John, Catelijne Coopmans, and Jennifer Whyte. 2006. "Structure and agency? Actor-network theory and strategic organization." Strategic Organization 4:303-312.
16
commitments.”51 They provide an important lesson that merely citing one of ANT’s authors by
no means indicates that the citing article has accepted ANT fully, or even at all. Without
conducting a citation analysis, such a reference only indicates that ANT as an approach is on the
author’s radar, proving influential enough to either adopt, revise, incorporate partially, or
formally reject.
The paucity of previous studying empirically tracing ANT is bolstered by other studies
that provide a more arbitrary and interpretive map of ANT’s evolution, such as Law’s article that
provides four different “origin stories” of ANT, explaining that any “stories of its origins are
necessarily in part arbitrary,” as all such accounts “lay claim to and include a particular version
of the past created for particular purposes.”52 Thus, any account of ANT, whether it be
quantitative or qualitative, is necessarily just one lens from which to view its progression, and is,
as such, arbitrary.
ANT has changed significantly since it was first conceived, loosely falling into two
“waves”, which are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 2. These temporal categories are
proxies for changes that occurred in ANT due to its interaction with disciplines outside of STS.
Indeed, some of ANT’s most significant revisions have been instigated by authors who did not
have a hand in ANT’s initial creation, such as Annemarie Mol, Weibe Bijker, Susan Star,
Madeline Akrich, Donna Haraway, and others. With this in mind, it should be noted that these
authors were not included as a methodological, rather than a substantive choice. While these
authors have indeed contributed especially to the post-ANT literature, Callon, Latour, and Law
51 Page 25-26. Toennesen, Christian, Eamonn Molloy, and Claus D. Jacobs. 2006. "Lost in Translation? Actor-Network Theory and Organisation Studies." in European Group of Organizational Studies, 22nd EGOS Colloquium. Bergen, Norway. 52 Page 142. Law, John. 2009. "Actor-Network Theory and Material Semiotics." Pp. 141-158 in The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, 3rd Edition, edited by B. S. Turner. Oxford: Blackwell.
17
often remain obligatory passage points in most discussions of ANT and thus constitute a
legitimate proxy for tracking ANT’s progression.
Case Selection and Methodology
Metaphorically speaking, statements, according to the first principle, are much like genes that cannot survive if they do not manage to pass themselves on to later bodies.53
Taking Latour’s comparison between genes and statements one step further, this thesis operates
from the assumption that the fate of ideas, like statements or genes, rests on their future use.
Methodologically speaking, this premise allows one to use the citations of certain authors to
track how they are able to move “on to later bodies.” The bibliometric analysis of Callon, Latour,
and Law’s works was done using the ISI application of the “Cited Reference Search” which
allowed me to search for an author’s name within a specified set of years, to choose which works
to include, and to find all articles within the ISI database that cited at least one of the works
selected. The list of included works by Michel Callon, Bruno Latour, and John Law are listed in
Appendices B-D.
After selecting the cited works to be included in the analysis, I analyzed the works that
had cited at least one of the cited works on the ISI Web of Science website. The number of cited
works and number of works citing the cited works are shown for each author in the table below
[Also located in Appendix A, listed as Table 1]:
Table 1: Data Collection for ISI Web of Science Data Collection Michel Callon Bruno Latour John Law Total for each # Cited Works (CWs) 139 203 98 440 # Works Citing the Cited Works (WCCWs) 3,490 14,289 2,518 20,297
53 Page 38. Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18
A total of 20,297 works were listed as citing at least one of Callon, Latour, or Law’s works,
which were further refined by document type (only including the categories of article, editorial
material, discussion, proceedings paper, book review, letter, review, or note). Additionally, in
order to avoid counting self-citations, I excluded the WCCWs that were written by the author
being analyzed (e.g., Michel Callon was excluded as an author in the WCCWs when I was
analyzing his CWs). Thus, the numbers listed in the table above do not include works that do not
fall into the specifications.
For the analysis of the geographic progression of ANT, data on the WCCWs was
collected from the ISI Web of Science Analyze Data function. The following parameters were
included in the analysis: country, year, subject area, source title (i.e. the name of the journal in
which the article was published), and the institution from which the author originated. This data
was recorded and various graphs were made that compare the categories across both time and
geographic locality.
In addition to collecting bibliometric data on the citations of Callon, Latour, and Law’s
works, I also conducted interviews with five different individuals who have used ANT in their
own work in five different disciplines: political science, political theory, archeology, sociology,
and Africana studies/science and society studies. The interviews were semi-structured, following
a set of guiding questions, while at the same time being open to unplanned questions and
discussions [the interview questions are listed in Appendix E]. They were recorded and quotes
from the interviewees have been incorporated throughout the thesis to help provide a more
illustrative description of how people use ANT and where it fits in their discipline.
Why Care?
19
Organization Studies, Science and Technology Studies, Business Studies, Information Studies, Sociology, Geography, Anthropology, whatever the field, they cannot rely, by definition, on any structuralist explanation since information is transformation.54
Both ANT and Development Studies move within and between a wide variety of fields and
approaches, employing an eclectic array of approaches in order to capture very specific events on
the ground. In the same way that ANT cannot be applied to any particular disciplines,
Development Studies could not reasonably be distilled into a die-cut machine churning out strict
applications of its approach. Thus, in a broad sense, ANT and Development Studies are quite
similar in their reach; they both have the capacity to connect and reacquaint disciplines ranging
from anthropology to accounting, or from political theory to information and library sciences.
How does such a cumbersome beast (with tentacles in so many subject areas) move, evolve, and
stay relevant?
Second, and from a more pragmatic standpoint, ANT has much to offer Development
Studies, in particular in its reconceptualization of how power becomes enacted, which forces the
researcher to avoid short cuts in explaining inequalities and identities. While some research in
Development Studies certainly remains true to this aim (whether or not they employ ANT), there
is a tendency in some studies to rely overly on structural explanations to explain local
inequalities. This is not to say that the structural factors do not exist per se, rather, it is to shed
light on what an ANT approach offers Development Studies. As Latour peevishly reminds an
imaginary student, “[n]othing on earth allows you to say they [invisible entities] are there
without bringing in the proof of their presence.”55 His reconceptualization of power as an effect
rather than a cause, has very important implications for Development Studies research—for
example, studies focusing on how inequality is enacted and manifested seem more emancipatory 54 Page 153. Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, USA. 55 Page 150. Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, USA.
20
than studies simply focusing on why there is inequality (which then have to reach up to the
“macro” level in order to explain).
Last, the timing of this thesis is especially relevant, as there have been a flurry of recent
works in Development Studies (and in other social sciences) that have employed ANT quite
successfully.56 Thus, a thorough understanding of how ANT has developed, from where it has
come, and to where it is headed is quite helpful for researchers in Development Studies. It can be
hard within both ANT and Development Studies to explore the specific areas in which they have
been used, as they are both so multidisciplinary, which makes it easy to miss certain types of
research and approaches. This thesis aims to provide an epidemiology of ANT for the
Development Studies researcher in order to expose both parties to opportunities for mutual
translations.
Limitations and Proposed Thesis Structure There are several limitations to this thesis, many of which are directly related to the general
problems of bibliometric analysis. The first is simply that a bibliometric analysis does not
provide one with an absolute indication of prestige or influence. I have tried to combat this by
adding an analysis of which journals and institutions the citing articles were from, and how the
journals and institutions are ranked within their field. Additionally, while there are some
legitimate concerns about the uses of bibliometric analysis,57 because many institutions rely on
such indicators for promotions and tenure,58 it seems that even if bibliometric analyses on their
56 For example: Mosse, David. 2005. Cultivating Development: An Ethnography of Aid Policy and Practice. London: Pluto Press; Resnik, Julia. 2006. "International Organizations, the 'Education-Economic Growth' Black Box, and the Development of World Education Culture." Comparative Education Review 50:173-195; Fenwick, Tara and Richard Edwards. 2010. Actor-network theory in education. New York: Routledge. 57 Lawrence, P.A. "Lost in Publication: How Measurement Harms Science." Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics(ESEP) 8, no. 1 (2008): 9-11. 58 Ball, P. "Achievement Index Climbs the Ranks." Nature 448, no. 7155 (2007): 737-37.
21
own do not indicate very much, they are given meaning and weight when institutions use them to
determine very real outcomes, such as tenure. Bibliometric data analysis has a performative
aspect to it, which cannot be ignored.
The second limitation to this thesis is also linked to bibliometric analysis, but is more
pragmatic in nature: I cannot provide a causal explanation for why the theory progressed, as I am
mainly concerned with larger trends and associations between data. I have therefore added a
background chapter on the origins of ANT by way of STS, and the theoretical translations that
have occurred within ANT. The interviews also help to add depth and possible interpretations of
the data. I also refrain from making any causal explanations of my data, only suggesting possible
interpretations when appropriate.
The final major limitation could be more optimistically termed an opportunity for future
research. One of the interviewees mentioned that she had read articles in Anthropology that did
not explicitly cite ANT, but were clearly using its lexicon and approach in their analysis. As
Anthropology tends to be looser in how it combines theoretical approaches, future studies
conducting content or co-word analyses could be quite informative.
This thesis is broken up into five chapters. The second chapter parses out a genealogy of
ANT, that traces its theoretical development within STS and through its own evolution and
translations. The third chapter conducts a bibliographic analysis of the geographic, disciplinary,
and temporal progression of ANT at the international level. The fourth chapter concentrates on
the spread of ANT within the United States, examining the change over time of subject area, but
also taking into account the prestige of the journals and institutions that publish works citing one
of the three authors. The final chapter concludes by tying together the various strands developed
in Chapters 2, 3, and 4.
22
23
CHAPTER 2: The Theoretical Evolution and Translations of ANT
It has spread, and as it has spread it has translated itself into something new, indeed into many things that are new and different from one another. It has converted itself into a range of different practices which (for this is the point of talking of translation) have also absorbed and reflected other points of origin…So actor-network theory is diasporic. Its parts are different from one another. But they are also (here is the point) partially connected.59
Introduction Actor-Network Theory is connected through multiple, sinuous, and changing strands that (like
the networks it describes) hold together just enough to be described as an approach, or as a series
of approaches linked by similar principles on how research should be conducted. But its
categorization as “an” approach or even as “a” theory is misleading, as it tends to black box how
ANT formed and the theoretical travels it has taken since. This chapter aims to scratch at those
black boxes by providing a descriptive account of ANT’s theoretical underpinnings, starting with
STS and its precursors. Through mapping this history, this chapter aims to connect the
theoretical translations that ANT has experienced with a more empirical tracing of its effects in
Chapters 3 and 4.
I will first provide a brief sketch of ANT in order to familiarize the reader generally with
its approach, which will be followed by a description of the roots of and strands within STS. As
ANT emerged out of STS, along with being influenced by other disciplines, this discussion will
shine light into the black box of ANT’s historical underpinnings. Second, this chapter addresses
59 Page 10. Law, John. 1999. "After ANT: complexity, naming and topography." Pp. 1-14 in Actor Network Theory and after, Sociological Review Monographs, edited by J. Law and J. Hassard. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
24
the theoretical translations within ANT, which can loosely be grouped into two waves. As ANT
began to have more interaction with disciplines outside of STS during the 1990s, there was a
more reflexive understanding of ANT’s own ontological underpinnings, along with a grafting in
of different disciplinary perspectives. This theoretical examination of ANT is important, as
Chapters 3 and 4 are only able to trace where ANT was cited, but not able to trace how it was
used. Thus, this chapter helps to shed light on some of the possible ways in which ANT
influenced other fields, along with how ANT was affected by those interactions.
Actors, Networks, and Theory
I will start by saying that there are four things that do not work with actor-network theory; the word actor, the word network, the word theory and the hyphen! Four nails in the coffin.60 Alas, the historical name is ‘actor-network theory’, a name that is so awkward, so confusing, so meaningless that it deserves to be kept. If the author, for instance, of a travel guide is free to propose new comments on the land he has chosen to present, he is certainly not free to change its most common name since the easiest signpost is the best—after all, the origin of the word ‘America’ is even more awkward.61
With such an awkward and contested name, it seems appropriate to begin an introduction to
ANT by disaggregating those parts in order to clear up any potential misunderstandings of what
they signify. ANT emerged as a way of studying technological change and innovation in the late
1980s and was conceived of by three main theorists: Bruno Latour,62 Michel Callon,63 and John
60 Page 15. Latour, Bruno. 1999. “On Recalling ANT.” Pp. 15-25 in Actor Network Theory and after, Sociological Review Monographs, edited by J. Law and J. Hassard. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 61 Page 9. Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, USA. 62 Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 63 Callon, Michel. 1986. "Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay." Pp. 196-223 in Power, action and belief: a new sociology of knowledge?, Sociological Review Monograph, edited by J. Law. London: Routledge.
25
Law.64 However, the theory has evolved since then to purport to explain social change as well as
technological change, exemplified especially in Latour’s book, Reassembling the Social, which
takes an ANT approach to examining how the social as a category can be broken down into
various actants and elements and why it is imperative to do so.65
The concept of the actor and what it constitutes is at the center of ANT and the
controversy surrounding the approach, as ANT symmetrically studies all actants, meaning that
both human and non-human actors are treated in the same manner and seen as capable of
enacting change. As it is usually defined through operational means, finding a satisfactory
definition of an actor according to ANT can be difficult and one is usually forced to accept broad
definitions, much like the one posed by Callon and Law, who define actors as “both networks
and points. They are both individuals and collectives.”66
A network, in the ANT sense, is formed from the heterogeneous set of connections and
relationships among actors and actants that are the product of successful translations. Latour’s
definition of the network in 1987, while influenced by Deleuze and Guattari’s concept of the
rhizome, has since been colored by the proliferation of more literal networks, such as the World
Wide Web. He states that “[t]he word network indicates that resources are concentrated in a few
places – knots and the nodes – which are connected with one another – links and the mesh: these
connections transform the scattered resources into a net that may seem to extend everywhere.”67
However, Latour has since rearticulated what network should signify, stating that it was
64 Law, John. 1987. "Technology and Heterogeneous Engineering: The Case Portuguese Expansion." Pp. 111-134 in The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, edited by W. Bijker, T. Hughes, and T. Pinch. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 65 Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, USA. 66 Page 169. Callon, Michel and John Law. 1997. "After the individual in society: lessons on collectivity from science, technology and society." Canadian Journal of Sociology 22:11. 67 Page 180. Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
26
supposed to be interpreted as “a series of transformations—translations, transductions—which
could not be captured by any of the traditional terms of social theory.”68
The definition of theory in ANT, like both actor and network, should not be taken at face
value. Latour clarifies that, “[i]t’s a theory, and a strong one I think, but about how to study
things, or rather how not to study them—or rather, how to let the actors have some room to
express themselves.”69 Thus, as opposed to other sociological theories that can propose
substantive claims about events and actors, ANT provides descriptions of events in flux; ANT’s
theory, according to its proponents, is open enough to allow actors to act in unpredictable ways
when circumstances are changing quickly and older theories are no longer relevant.70
Genealogy of ANT by Way of STS While today ANT has strayed from its roots in STS—endeavoring to have influence beyond just
science and technology71—in order to properly understand its place in sociology today, it is
imperative to locate the theory within Science and Technology Studies in order to understand the
heterogeneous and loose conglomeration of things that come together to make ANT. Even
though ANT is now applicable in a wide variety of disciplines, it draws on theoretical
controversies and developments that are particular to STS. In addition to STS, the first wave of
ANT also draws on French poststructuralist theory and certain philosophical writers, such as
Algirdas Julien Greimas and Michel Serres. The second wave of ANT remained loyal to the
68 Page 15. Latour, Bruno. 1999. "On Recalling ANT." Pp. 15-25 in Actor-Network Theory and after, Sociological Review Monographs, edited by J. Law and J. Hassard. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 69 Page 142. Italics in original. Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, USA. 70 Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, USA. 71 e.g., Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, USA.
27
basic premises of the first wave, but evolved organically in response to various critiques and new
interpretations of the theory/methodology in a wide variety of disciplines.
STS is a relatively young discipline, only coalescing into any codified form during the
early 1980s; however, its evolution was slow, beginning in the early 1900s and evolving in a
non-linear manner, more defined by controversies and opposition than by any unifying
theoretical perspective.72 Its development was the result of an ongoing debate between the
sociology of knowledge and the philosophy of science, from which initially emerged relationism,
logical positivism, falsificationism, and Fleck’s “thought collectives”. All were in some form or
another reactions against another way of interpreting science, but the two that were most well
accepted during the 1930s were logical positivism and falsificationism, the combination of which
helped instigate the structural functionalist approach after WWII and the Kuhnian Revolution in
the early 1960s.73 It was the combination of these factors, along with elements of the history of
technology and the permutations of the debate between the sociology of knowledge and the
philosophy of science, which created STS in the 1980s. Below I will discuss the origins of STS,
the various strands within STS, the evolution of ANT within STS, and finally the evolution
within ANT.
Prelude to an Inter-discipline, or the Beginnings of STS Science and Technology Studies draws upon both the sociology of knowledge the
philosophy of science throughout its progression. The sub-disciplinary groups that were products
of the debate between the two subjects have been especially poignant for STS, in particular,
72 Roosth, Sophia and Susan Silbey. 2009. "Science and Technology Studies: From Controversies to Posthumanist Social Theory." Pp. 452-473 in The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, 3rd Edition, edited by B. S. Turner. Oxford: Blackwell. 73 Roosth, Sophia and Susan Silbey. 2009. "Science and Technology Studies: From Controversies to Posthumanist Social Theory." Pp. 452-473 in The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, 3rd Edition, edited by B. S. Turner. Oxford: Blackwell.
28
relationism, logical positivism, falsificationism, realism, and functionalism contributed greatly to
the development of how and against whom scholars within STS situate themselves. Figure 1
provides a visual depicting of the various arguments between disciplines and approaches that
came together to make STS [located in Appendix A].
During the early parts of the 1900s, it was generally assumed that science was a rational
process from which natural or scientific truth could be attained. However, while such a view
characterized the general approach, there were variants within it, which questioned the
assumption that science was above the social processes with which anthropologists and
sociologists were concerned. One such figure, Karl Mannheim, was essential in the development
of the sociology of knowledge, and was influenced heavily by Durkheim, Kant, and Dilthy.74 His
well-known works on ideology, such as his essay, “Ideology and Utopia,” opened the doors for
scientific knowledge to be studied in the same manner as other forms of knowledge that were
more accepted as being products of society. Ideology, Mannheim claimed, shaped the ways in
which people conceived of the world and was the result of social context. However, his theory
was also reflexive, noting that all forms of knowledge and forms of thought were deeply
embedded in the social context that depended on both time and space—a claim that flirted
dangerously close to relativism, to which Mannheim did not subscribe. In order to avoid falling
into a relativistic black hole, he termed his approach relationism, as he thought that knowledge
being the product of society was only arbitrary if attempting to examine it from outside of that
context, which would not be possible.
However, Mannheim would have to remain for some time in the margins of the debate on
science, as logical positivists and falsificationists both disagreed strongly with his interpretation,
74 Roosth, Sophia and Susan Silbey. 2009. "Science and Technology Studies: From Controversies to Posthumanist Social Theory." Pp. 452-473 in The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, 3rd Edition, edited by B. S. Turner. Oxford: Blackwell.
29
and were also both the mainstream strands of thought before WWII. Logical positivism is largely
associated with the Vienna Circle, a group of well-known philosophers and thinkers that
interacted with one another from the 1920s to the early 1930s. It was considered logical because
its proponents considered philosophy to be the logical analysis of phenomena such as language
and basic science; positivist because its proponents believed that knowledge was formed through
experience and a positive set of methods.75 Central to this approach was the idea that theories has
to be based on data points that got expanded and made into theories, a process known as
induction. For example, a logical positivist might use data points on previous economic
catastrophes in order to make a claim about the nature of economic catastrophes in general. In
addition, this progression from data to theories implied for the logical positivists that science was
progressing towards a greater truth, as more information was gathered on the world at large.76
However, two main problems with logical positivism are quite apparent. First, by making
arguments solely from ones experience logical positivists make the assumption that since
something has always occurred, that it will occur again, what in the eighteenth century David
Hume called the fallibility of arguments from experience. For example, the idea that since the
sun has always risen, it will rise tomorrow, is not based on anything except past experience and
does not explain why it should rise tomorrow except that it always has. The second problem with
logical positivism is that theories that have the same data can end up at very different
conclusions, implying that the final theory was not induced by only the observable data points.77
In response to the problems of induction, falsificationism—most associated with the work
of Karl Popper—proposed that theories could still be falsified by empirical evidence. Thus,
75 2007. "Logical Positivism." in Philosophy of Science A-Z. Edinburg: Edinburgh University Press. 76 Sismondo, Sergio. 2010. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 77 Sismondo, Sergio. 2010. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
30
theories that could not be falsified did not constitute scientific theories (e.g. Marxism and
Freudianism), as they could adapt to whatever new data emerged.78 Theories that do not make
concrete predictions and only rely on general statements, for falsificationists, are unscientific.
The asymmetric relationship between verification and falsification underpins this approach, as no
amount of data can inductively prove a theory, while showing an example of the theory’s
inability to predict something would prove it to be false.79 Theories can thus be tested, with the
result either being corroboration (if the test supports the theory) or falsification (if it does not
support the theory).
Falsificationism, however, was never able to overcome a critique known as the Duhem-
Quine thesis, which stated that since all theories were situated within a larger structure and
architecture of beliefs, theories cannot be tested in isolation from one another as they all rest on
sets of auxiliary assumptions.80 This refutation of falsificationism showed that since an
innumerable amount of factors contribute to any prediction being made, it is impossible to
disaggregate which factor was the one that made a theory false.81
Underlying both logical positivism and falsificationism, which are mainly concerned with
how science gets carried out, is a fundamental claim on what the nature of science consists. This
claim about the nature of science has been termed realism—the general idea that the nature of
science is to progress towards greater truth and accumulates more truth as it develops—and is
another important contribution from the philosophy of science. As time passes and as techniques
improve, realists believe that because the predictive ability of science is improving, so is its level
78 Sismondo, Sergio. 2010. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 79 2007. "Falsificationism." in Philosophy of Science A-Z. Edinburg: Edinburgh University Press. 80 Sismondo, Sergio. 2010. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.; 2007. "Duhem-Quine thesis." in Philosophy of Science A-Z. Edinburg: Edinburgh University Press. 81 Sismondo, Sergio. 2010. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.; 2007. "Duhem-Quine thesis." in Philosophy of Science A-Z. Edinburg: Edinburgh University Press.
31
of truth. Thus, in order to achieve these progressions toward a greater level of truth, realists
generally advocate that a systematic methodology be used in the sciences.82
One of the main arguments against this interpretation of science as progressing toward
greater truths is the problem of underdetermination of theory by data. Essentially, this critique
states that data provides a skeleton around which there can be infinitely many possibilities for the
actual form that they take. Scientists have to choose from among infinite choices and then decide
on one, from which they extrapolate their theory. Thus, no matter how many data points one has,
the theory that develops off that them is fundamentally underdetermined.83
Against both logical positivism and falsificationism, Ludwik Fleck incorporated
Durkheim’s treatment of social facts as things, instead applying it to the scientific realm, seeing
scientific facts as things to be explained. Going off of Durkheim’s concept of a “social group,”
Fleck saw the scientific community as a “thought collective,” whose interpretation of data was
heavily influenced by the basic theories underlying it. Thus, not only was theory
underdetermined, but it was also shaped by the scientific theoretical zeitgeist.84 His work is an
important anticipation of future social constructivism in science and technology studies. Science,
he claimed, does not move in a one-directional manner towards truth; rather, science is
constantly going forward and then reversing to overthrow previous theoretical positions, which
also foreshadowed the Kuhnian Revolution.85
82 Sismondo, Sergio. 2010. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 83 Sismondo, Sergio. 2010. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 84 Roosth, Sophia and Susan Silbey. 2009. "Science and Technology Studies: From Controversies to Posthumanist Social Theory." Pp. 452-473 in The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, 3rd Edition, edited by B. S. Turner. Oxford: Blackwell. 85 Roosth, Sophia and Susan Silbey. 2009. "Science and Technology Studies: From Controversies to Posthumanist Social Theory." Pp. 452-473 in The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, 3rd Edition, edited by B. S. Turner. Oxford: Blackwell.
32
Structural Functionalism While the philosophy of science concerned itself with the fundamental nature of science
and how it is conducted—seemingly outside of the realm of the social—a sociological
perspective on science is concerned with the interaction between the scientific and the social
realms. One of the most prominent schools of sociological thought is the functionalist
perspective, most often attributed to the work of Robert Merton, who saw science as serving a
strong social purpose through the creation of certifiable knowledge that by being certified, was
socially acceptable and governed by norms. Most important of these are the four moral norms,
proposed by Merton in 1942: universalism, communism, disinterestedness, and organized
skepticism.86 The principle of universalism detached the person making the scientific claim from
the claim itself—a claim should not be discredited just because the person making the claim is
not credible. That of communism maintains the collective ownership of scientific knowledge;
while people should be recognized for their scientific contributions, they cannot decide how and
by whom their ideas will be used. Disinterestedness ensured that personal interests and goals
were not attached to the formation of scientific knowledge—for example, the falsification of data
in order to achieve monetary ends would be a breach of this moral norm. Lastly, the principle of
organized skepticism entails the critical appraisal and disbelief of new concepts and ideas until
they are well established, even if one is predisposed to believe a certain idea.87
Merton was not concerned with whether or not the science progressed towards a greater
truth, or even whether it was true at all, but rather with the role of science as having a strong
social purpose. Through certain norms in the scientific community, Merton proposed that
science’s social structure incentivized (by rewarding) those who contributed to the certified
86 Sismondo, Sergio. 2010. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 87 Sismondo, Sergio. 2010. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
33
knowledge base and negatively incentivized (by penalizing) those who prevented science from
attaining its certified knowledge production. Much like standards, norms provide a systematic
way in which to conduct scientific inquiry, institutionalizing the process in order for it to become
generally replicable and standardized.88
However, Merton’s norms were reformulated during the 1970s to take a more critical
approach to issues concerning how science and technology were institutionalized, received, and
appropriated by various actors.89 The theory behind Merton’s norms took a backseat to the much
more immediate political concerns with science and technology, spurred in part from growing
social movements, such as the anti-Vietnam protests and the anti-nuclear movement. This critical
approach to Mertonian norms spurred research in many areas, such as: science institutions and
funding; technological innovation, planning, and assessment; the public understanding of science
(PUS) and science education, from which emerged studies on the role of science as evidence in
law and the role of science in the creation of government policies.90
The three dominant perspectives on science until after WWII—logical positivism,
falsificationism, and functionalism—constitute attempts to define what an ideal version of
science would entail, as opposed to depicting the actual process through which science gets
conducted. The establishment of sound methods or equally strong norms, for these approaches,
helps make science what they conceive to be an objective enterprise. While the functionalists
may have rejected that science progresses steadily to an end point of truth, they perceived the
establishment of norms within the scientific community as facilitating a more objective and 88 Barnes, Barry. 2007. "Catching up with Robert Merton: Scientific Collectives as Status Groups." Journal of Classical Sociology 7:24. 89 Roosth, Sophia and Susan Silbey. 2009. "Science and Technology Studies: From Controversies to Posthumanist Social Theory." Pp. 452-473 in The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, 3rd Edition, edited by B. S. Turner. Oxford: Blackwell. 90 Roosth, Sophia and Susan Silbey. 2009. "Science and Technology Studies: From Controversies to Posthumanist Social Theory." Pp. 452-473 in The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, 3rd Edition, edited by B. S. Turner. Oxford: Blackwell.
34
functionally true form of knowledge production. Both relationism and Fleck’s “thought
collectives” were important precursors to future questioning of the nature of scientific
progression and practice, but at the time were given relatively little credence within the
sociology of science. However, even though they remained marginal approaches within the
sociology of science, they provided an important base for the future constructivist perspectives
on science.
The Kuhnian Revolution The Kuhnian Revolution, as it is now known, stemmed Thomas Kuhn’s book, Structure
of Scientific Revolutions, which had a huge impact on how people envisioned the progression of
science.91 In reaction to a formalist view of science (both positivism and falsificationism) and a
Whig history, Kuhn eschewed taking an approach that saw the progression of science as either
linear or as steps towards (or away from) the present.
Instead of taking a formalist view of science, Kuhn proposed that science is advanced
through paradigm shifts that emerge out of “Normal science,” which is the state of science when
theoretical perspectives shape ones worldview while practical perspectives serve as a form of
life.92 Rather than being static, Normal science characterized periods in which the scientific
community and practices were relatively well structured, lending a seemingly rational picture of
how science has progressed, to whom ideas and practices are indebted, etc. This period of
Normal science encounters problems in the data and theory, but attempts to reconcile it with
previous ideas about how science functioned, until certain phenomena become anomalies, finally
escalating into scientific crises. It is when a (usually younger) scientist offers a new perspective
91 Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970. Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press. 92 Sismondo, Sergio. 2010. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
35
that can serve as an alternative to the previous Normal science that a paradigm shift begins to
happen, as more and more people begin to accept what the new science is proposing, producing a
new Normal science. As this process indicates, science is not a linear process that goes from less
knowledge to more knowledge, less truth to more truth. Rather, it progresses through a series of
jumps—what Kuhn calls paradigms—that fundamentally change how science is practiced and
perceived, or what he called the radical incommensurability of scientific paradigms.
However, Kuhn later distanced himself from the idea of radical incommensurability after
it was shown that, in fact, it was possible to compare between paradigms,93 which poked a
significant hole in his theory—if there was no radical incommensurability, then it would follow
that there would also be no radical changes between the scientific paradigms. Thus, Kuhn
proposed that there exist trading zones and boundary objects that mediate the communication
between paradigms and disciplines. Trading zones are places in which various disciplines meet
and cross-fertilize ideas and concepts, which is possible due to the use of simplified language
between the epistemic cultures making it possible to understand each other. Boundary objects are
objects that mediate the mutual understanding across groups that are incommensurable to one
another. These objects—with quite different meanings to each group—help to unify disciplines
without having to translate ideas, goals, and concepts between the groups.94
The Strong Programme The Strong Programme, also known as the Edinburgh School, consisted a group of
sociologists, historians, and philosophers that endeavored to develop a “strong programme in the
sociology of knowledge,” in order to better understand, through a sociological lens, both the 93 e.g., Davidson, Donald. 1974. "On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme." Proceedings of the American Philosophical Association 47:16.; and an overview in Bird, Alexander. 2000. Thomas Kuhn. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 94 Sismondo, Sergio. 2010. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
36
organization and the content of scientific knowledge production.95 David Bloor, one of the better-
known members of this school, proposed four tenets to guide the sociology of scientific
knowledge, which provide structure and rigor to understanding how knowledge is produced and
maintained. The four principles are: first, that such a program be focused on making causal
statements about the conditions that bring about the emergence of beliefs and knowledge;
second, that it would remain impartial when dealing with issues of whether something is true or
false, or rational or irrational; third, that it would adopt a principle of symmetry with regard to
causes—the same varieties of causes could explain true beliefs just as easily as they could
explain false ones; and fourth, that such a sociology would be reflexive and would be able to
apply the first three principles to their own study.96
The Strong Programme has been attacked for rejecting truth, the reality of the material
world, and rationality.97 However, these claims are largely unsubstantiated—what the school
proposes is that when taken in isolation such things as truth, the reality of the material world, and
rationality are not very useful, as they are unable to explain much on their own.98 Other scholars
have critiqued it for doing just the opposite—having too much of an emphasis on truth and being
too tied to the material world.99 From the ANT perspective, the Strong Programme takes interests
95 Page 47. Sismondo, Sergio. 2010. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 96 Sismondo, Sergio. 2010. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.; Bloor, David. 1991. Knowledge and Social Imagery. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 97 e.g., Brown, James Robert. 2001. Who Rules in Science? An Opinionated Guide to the Wars. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 98 Sismondo, Sergio. 2010. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 99 Sismondo, Sergio. 2010. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
37
as too fixed and rigid and fails to account for how such interests are translated throughout the
process of making scientific and technological artifacts.100
Taking a cultural and social perspective as a way to analyze of what science and
technology consist, the Strong Programme is one of the foundational approaches to STS and
remains relevant to this day. However, their one-sided emphases on the social factors that
influence the production of knowledge make it a relatively incomplete way in which to address
the construction of scientific facts.101
Studies on Technology During the 1970s, perspectives on technology could be divided into two camps: the first
camp was populated by the historians of technology, who asserted that technology was
ontologically and epistemologically different from science; the second camp was populated by
the philosophers of technology, who generally assumed that technology was just an applied
version of science that was already formed, as opposed to something in and of its own right.102
Generally, while the historians of technology opposed the idea of technological determinism, the
philosophers were the group most interested in this idea. More recently, however, both the
historians and the philosophers have found common interests, coming together more on the issue
of the role of technology.103 During the post-WWII period, most research on technology
concentrated on the effects that technology in action can have on human society—especially 100 e.g., Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; Callon, Michel. 1986. "Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay." Pp. 196-223 in Power, action and belief: a new sociology of knowledge?, Sociological Review Monograph, edited by J. Law. London: Routledge; Callon, Michel and Bruno Latour. 1992. "Don't Throw the Baby Out with the Bath School! A reply to Collins and Yearley"." pp. 343-68 in Science as Practice and Culture, edited by A. Pickering. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 101 Sismondo, Sergio. 2010. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 102 Misa, Thomas J. 2009. "History of Technology." in Companion to the Philosophy of Technology, edited by J. K. B. Olsen, S. A. Pedersen, and V. F. Hendricks. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 103 Misa, Thomas J. 2009. "History of Technology." in Companion to the Philosophy of Technology, edited by J. K. B. Olsen, S. A. Pedersen, and V. F. Hendricks. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
38
after the atrocities committed by using technology during WWII, such as the atomic bomb
dropped by the United States on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan.104
Technology, if seen through a technological determinist standpoint, is firmly woven into
the fabric of the power structure, reinforcing and living off of it. Both Lewis Mumford105 and
Martin Heidegger106 conceive of large-scale technology projects as a process of the
objectification of power in machines.107 Technology, for Mumford and Heidegger, was seen as
the product of scientific rationality, an applied version of a rational and calculating science.108
From this perspective emerged the discipline of Science, Technology, and Society, which
saw science as a social institution whose problems needed to be addressed in order for a more
socially responsible science to be conducted.109 Scholars from this approach were concerned with
the uneven distribution of the costs, benefits, and risks of science and technology and its effects
on society. Science, Technology, and Society had a significant contribution to the new form of
STS (Science and Technology Studies) and helping to form it, and remaining an integral aspect
of STS.110
While initially emerging from the ongoing debate between a philosophical approach and
a sociological approach, STS has incorporated many different disciplines and perspectives into
104 Sismondo, Sergio. 2010. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 105 Mumford, Lewis. 1934. Technics and Civilization. New York: Harcourt Brace; Mumford, Lewis. 1967. The Myth of the Machine, vol. 1. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. 106 Heidegger, Martin. 1977. The Question Concerning Technology, and Other Essays. Translated by W. Lovitt. New York: Harper & Row. 107 Sismondo, Sergio. 2010. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 108 Sismondo, Sergio. 2010. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 109 Sismondo, Sergio. 2010. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.; Ravetz, Jerome R. 1971. Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems. Oxford: Clarendon; Spiegel-Rösing, Ina and Derek de Solla Price. 1977. "Science, Technology and Society: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective." London: Sage; Cutliffe, Stephen H. 2000. Ideas, Machines, and Values: An Introduction to Science, Technology, and Society Studies. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 110 Sismondo, Sergio. 2010. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
39
what it is today. The History and Philosophy of Science; the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge;
Structural Functionalism; Science, Technology, and Society, which emerged from other studies
on technology; and sociological theorists, such as Durkehim, Marx, and Weber, have all
contributed to the perspectives and debates going on the contemporary STS.111 During the mid-
1980s, there began to be a more directed study of STS, with various institutions setting up
interdisciplinary departments on the subject, such as at Virginia Tech, Cornell University, and
Stanford University, among many others.
Science and Technology Studies (STS) Science and Technology Studies, being the fusion of a variety of tangential approaches to
the study of science and technology, has a diverse approach to methods and explanation.
Generally, however, it is composed of three main methods and explanation, falling loosely into a
topic, issue, or combined focus approach.112 As each method sees the field differently, due to how
it is focused, the choice of method is dependent on how one chooses to define the field.113 Within
the STS community, there exists debate about the relative merits of being multidisciplinary—
while some defend it, others argue against it, advocating rather for either a transdisciplinary or
interdisciplinary perspective.114 Figure 2 and Figure 3 provide a schematic of the different strands
of STS and from where they draw.
111 Bowden, Gary. 1995. "Coming of Age in STS: Some Methodological Musings." in Handbook of Science and Technology, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, and T. Pinch. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 112 Bowden, Gary. 1995. "Coming of Age in STS: Some Methodological Musings." in Handbook of Science and Technology, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, and T. Pinch. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 113 Bowden, Gary. 1995. "Coming of Age in STS: Some Methodological Musings." in Handbook of Science and Technology, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, and T. Pinch. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 114 Bowden, Gary. 1995. "Coming of Age in STS: Some Methodological Musings." in Handbook of Science and Technology, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, and T. Pinch. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
40
Science and technology, for STS, tend to be seen as inherently social activities that are
constructed through communities of scientists and engineers that become socially conditioned in
the culture of science. Norms are developed through the community and localized culture, which
makes scientists concerned with the ability of their work to convince their colleagues and
community members of their values, plans, and ideas.115 This construction is not a static process
occurring once or twice and lasting into the future, however, for STS sees science and
technology as inherently active processes, constantly maintaining and reconfiguring its norms,
culture, and ideas.116 One way to study these active processes of science in the making is through
laboratory studies, which are integral to STS’s ability to study scientific processes.117 This study
of science in the making, or the production of knowledge that is not yet finished, is what
laboratory studies is best at addressing.118 Since their first uses, however, laboratory studies has
branched out from just focusing on actual laboratories, to taking a more metaphorical approach
to what constitutes a laboratory and what constitutes the field.119
Thus, the approach taken by STS is distinct from those taken in the philosophy of science
and the technology studies domains, as it is focused on how science is an activity that is a
fundamentally constructed, social, and active process meeting at the interaction between the
laboratory and the field. The creation of knowledge is a continuous process of translation and
115 Sismondo, Sergio. 2010. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 116 Sismondo, Sergio. 2010. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 117 Knorr Cetina, Karin. 1995. "Laboratory Studies: The Cultural Approach to the Study of Science." in Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, and T. Pinch. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.; e.g., Latour, Bruno and Steve Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory life: the social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. 118 Knorr Cetina, Karin. 1995. "Laboratory Studies: The Cultural Approach to the Study of Science." in Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, and T. Pinch. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 119 Knorr Cetina, Karin. 1995. "Laboratory Studies: The Cultural Approach to the Study of Science." in Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, and T. Pinch. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.; e.g., Callon, Michel, Pierre Lascoumes, and Yannick Barthe. 2009. Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy. Translated by G. Burchell. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41
reconfiguration that is best studied, according to STS, from a constructivist standpoint, taking
every element that is standard to the study of science into question.
Social Construction Tying many aspects of STS together, the idea of social construction—the idea that facts,
theories, phenomena, knowledge, science, societies, and technologies are all constructed through
social processes—became influential in STS during the late 1970s.120 The term and concept of
social construction is based on Berger and Luckmann’s work claiming that social reality,
including its knowledge and institutions, come to exist because of people actions and attitudes.121
Features of the social world exist because people act as if they do, as opposed to because they
existed as a priori entities or concepts outside of the social sphere before being uncovered.
Three main assumptions are critical to understanding how social construction fits into
STS: first, is the assumption that science and technology are fundamentally social activities;
second is the assumption that science and technology are also active processes that are
continuously being made and remade; and third, is the assumption that while science and
technology study nature and phenomena that often exist outside of the social world, the products
of that study are not themselves natural.122
One facet of social construction is the premise that technology and science, which ends
up being successful is constructed out of the compilation of many heterogeneous components
that combine to make up the artifact. In particular, ANT focuses on the make-up and alignment
of various components that come to make up the final artifact or product, which is never the
120 Sismondo, Sergio. 2010. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 121 Berger, Peter L. and Thomas Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. 122 Sismondo, Sergio. 2010. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
42
result of just one person or entity, but rather the mixing of unlikely actors and actants through
networks. Latour’s book, Aramis—which narrates a schizophrenic investigation of what “killed”
the realization of France’s Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) system in Paris, known as Aramis—is
demonstrative of this melding of many forces.123 In it, Latour describes the difficult process of
making Aramis “real,” and what factors made it unable to be fully realized. The characters (it is
written as if it were a novel) investigate Aramis’ death by tracking the networks that formed
around the project—Latour is able to show how a relatively banal concept such as a transit car’s
nonmaterial couplings can be linked to the political and other social phenomena.
In sum, the evolution of the discipline now known as STS gives insights into how ANT
emerged and how it has placed itself with regard to its predecessors in both the philosophy of
science and in the sociology of science. Each component added, starting with logical positivism
and moving ultimately to social construction and the development of ANT, important
components to either bolster or refute previous ways of approaching the production of
knowledge in the science and technology realm.
Evolution Within ANT While ANT is grounded in STS, it also draws upon other disciplines, such as the French
poststructuralist and semiotic work of Michel Foucault,124 Michel Serres,125 Algirdas Julien
Greimas,126 and Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guatarri.127 The first wave of ANT was heavily
influenced by these poststructuralist philosophical and semiotic approaches to sociology, which
ANT theorists incorporated into their material-semiotic approach to studying science and 123 Latour, Bruno. 1996. Aramis, or the Love of Technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 124 Foucault, Michel. 1979. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 125 Serres, Michel. 1974. La Traduction: Hermes III. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit. 126 Greimas, Algirdas Julien. 1979. Dictionnaire de sémiotique. Paris: Hachette. 127 Deleuze, Gilles and Félix Guattari. 1987. A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
43
technology. However, the second wave of ANT was influenced by works from a broader range
of disciplines, indicative of ANT’s translation across disciplinary boundaries that occurred
throughout the 1990s and continues into the present day. Below the evolution within ANT is
discussed, first addressing the beginning stages of ANT’s development, followed by a discussion
of post-ANT thought and how it relates to the diffusion and translation of ANT across
disciplines. Figure 4 [located in Appendix A] shows a visual diagram of the first and second
waves of ANT.
Formation of a Heterogeneous Network, or Beginnings up to ANT 1990 The first wave of ANT is characterized by a number of specific innovations that separate
its approach from that of other STS approaches and from the French poststructuralist thought
from which it emerged. First, central to any understanding of ANT is the concept of translation,
which Latour and Callon borrow from Michel Serres,128 and provides a deeper understanding to
how two separate worlds can “become equivalent,” a feat that requires a betrayal of sorts, as no
two worlds can actually become equivalent.129 Second, and a corollary of the concept of
translation, is that of having a semiotic relationality, meaning that identities and roles are not
fixed a priori, but are rather created through a semiotic process of defining and redefining. Third,
this first wave of ANT emphasizes the tenuous durability of the heterogeneous networks
emerging out of the translation process. Fourth, the principle of free association, or ANT’s
dedication to not having any a priori assumptions about the boundaries between the natural,
social, and technological. Fifth, the principle of agnosticism states that the researcher must
remain impartial toward all actors under study. And sixth, the principle of a generalized
128 Serres, Michel. 1974. La Traduction: Hermes III. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit. 129 Law, John. 2009. "Actor-Network Theory and Material Semiotics." Pp. 141-158 in The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, 3rd Edition, edited by B. S. Turner. Oxford: Blackwell.
44
symmetry requires that researchers use the same terms and explanations to describe all actants
being studied, not providing “social” explanations for some and “scientific” or “technological”
explanations for others. These six principles, discussed in more detail below, constitute the
backbone of works that can fall under the first wave of ANT.
Callon’s development of a sociology of translation is one of the most important aspects of
ANT and is best seen in his 1986 article, “Some elements of a sociology of translation:
domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay,” which details how “scientific
knowledge” on scallops formed a network around the issue, altering the previous power
dynamics and forming new relationships among both human and non-human actants.130 From this
example, Callon expands and constructs a four-step process of translation to describe how the
identities of the actors, their interactions, and the options given to each at various points get
constructed and negotiated—he terms these steps, problematization, interessement, enrollment,
and mobilization.
Problematization happens when a set of actors first create and establish an identity within
a set or network of relationships they have created. Then, since they are at the middle of the
network, they turn themselves into a necessary passage point between the different actors—they
have defined both the actors and the roles they play within the network, thus involving the social
just as much as the natural world. The result of this is that the actors are at the center of a series
of relationships, which they claim need to remain intact for a problem to be fixed—in short, they
render themselves indispensable. Both Callon and Latour call this the formation of “obligatory
passage points” (OPP).
130 Callon, Michel. 1986. "Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay." Pp. 196-223 in Power, action and belief: a new sociology of knowledge?, Sociological Review Monograph, edited by J. Law. London: Routledge.
45
A process of interessment needs to occur in which those identities as defined by the the
OPPs are actually adopted by the actors. This is done through a “series of trials of strength,”
adjusting and negotiating the identities over time. The goal of the actors who seek to be at the
center of this process is to “interest” other actors by forming devices that lie between the
“interested” actors and the other forces which are also trying to define their identities. Social
structures are formed and codified, again combining the social and the natural worlds.
If interessment is successful, then the third step of enrolment occurs. In short, enrolment
is the formation of multilateral negotiations and “trials of strength” to establish the roles assigned
to each actor, which cements the structure created by the researchers. In order to achieve
enrolment, a series of interessments also needs to occur in reaction to the challenges at hand;
rather than being an end result, it is a process that gets negotiated throughout.
The fourth step is that of the mobilization of allies, and the question of representativity of
the spokespeople for the various groups. Since it is obviously very difficult or impossible to get
full participation from within the actor groups, Callon describes a self-selection process of
representation that occurs. The process of speaking in the name of another entity is magnified
outwards, starting from the bottom up; at each level there is a displacement of one actor for
another. By the end of the four-step process, various actors’ initial identities have transformed
(or translated) into an increasingly sclerotic network of relationships, which constrict the options
available to each group. However, this process does not always end with the actors remaining in
such a constraining network. Dissidence serves to call into question and change not only the
beliefs, but also the identity and characteristics of the actors involved.
The second major contribution of the first wave of ANT is semiotic relationality,
meaning that actants’ roles and identities are constantly shaped and reshaped through the process
46
of translation.131 Having a relational semiotic interpretation of roles and identities allows the
researcher to bypass assigning fixed identities and characteristics to actants within a network. For
example, instead of seeing power as a black-boxed cause of translation processes, it can instead
be seen as the effect of translation, enacted through a heterogeneous network of different
actants.132
Heterogeneous networks are the third major addition to the first wave of ANT. The
durability of these heterogeneous networks emerging out of translation is precarious and requires
immutable mobiles (things that are able to go between various actants in a network and not
change) in order to maintain (however loosely) intact.133 They are part of the process of
translation, but are also only able to be seen if one both applies a generalized symmetry and
discards a priori categorizations when studying translation—the heterogeneous aspect of the
networks can only be incorporated if all categories are treated and explained in the same manner.
Free association, the fourth component of ANT’s first wave, means that researchers
should not distinguish between the categories of the social and the natural worlds; both areas are
treated without any reference to their a priori categorizations.134 As Callon notes, “[i]nstead of
imposing a pre-established grid of analysis upon these, the observer follows the actors in order to
identify the manner in which these define and associate the different elements by which they
131 Law, John. 2009. "Actor-Network Theory and Material Semiotics." Pp. 141-158 in The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, 3rd Edition, edited by B. S. Turner. Oxford: Blackwell. 132 Law, John. 1999. "After ANT: complexity, naming and topography." Pp. 1-14 in Actor Network Theory and after, Sociological Review Monographs, edited by J. Law and J. Hassard. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 133 Tatnall, A. and A. Gilding. 1999. "Actor-network theory and information systems research." Pp. 955-966: Citeseer; Law, John. 1987. "Technology and Heterogeneous Engineering: The Case Portuguese Expansion." Pp. 111-134 in The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, edited by W. Bijker, T. Hughes, and T. Pinch. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; Singleton, Vicky and Mike Michael. 1993. "Actor-Networks and Ambivalence: General Practitioners in the UK Cervical Screening Programme." Social Studies of Science 23:227-264. 134 Tatnall, A. and A. Gilding. 1999. "Actor-network theory and information systems research." Pp. 955-966: Citeseer.
47
build and explain their world, whether it be social or natural.”135 Callon acknowledges that no
firm line exists between the natural and the social world and that taking into account the
permeability between the two is essential; dividing nature and society puts the material world in
a black box, as both nature and society are mutually constructive of one another, and the
boundary between the two is just as arbitrary as the boundary between true and false claims.136
The fifth principle that ANT’s first wave possesses is that of agnosticism, or the need to
question equally both the social sciences and the “hard” sciences—the observer has to remain
impartial and agnostic to the social as well as technological arguments in any controversy.137
While previous approaches tended to only remain agnostic about the technological and scientific
explanations given by researchers (providing social explanations for them), ANT stipulates the
need to also remain agnostic about the social explanations that research subjects may provide.
This generalized agnosticism blurs the boundary between social and scientific or technological
explanations for phenomena.
The sixth, and perhaps most controversial, component of the first wave of ANT is that of
generalized symmetry.138 The need for generalized symmetry is a reaction, in part, to David
Bloor’s 1976 book that proposed researchers undertake a symmetrical analysis to both true and
false claims, arguing that true and false claims should be seen as a product of social relations.139
135 Page 201. Callon, Michel. 1986. "Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay." Pp. 196-223 in Power, action and belief: a new sociology of knowledge?, Sociological Review Monograph, edited by J. Law. London: Routledge. 136 Miettinen, Reijo. 1999. "The riddle of things: activity theory and actor-network theory as approaches to studying innovations." Mind, Culture, and Activity 6:170-195. 137 Callon, Michel. 1986. "Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay." Pp. 196-223 in Power, action and belief: a new sociology of knowledge?, Sociological Review Monograph, edited by J. Law. London: Routledge. 138 An example of this controversy can be seen in the interchange between ANT and the Bath School, seen in these two articles: Collins, H. M. and Steven Yearley. 1992. "Epistemological Chicken." Pp. 301-326 in Science as practice and culture, edited by A. Pickering. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press; Callon, Michel and Bruno Latour. 1992. "Don't Throw the Baby Out with the Bath School! A reply to Collins and Yearley." Pp. 343-68 in Science as Practice and Culture, edited by A. Pickering. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 139 Bloor, David. 1991. Knowledge and Social Imagery. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
48
The first wave of ANT agrees with the Strong Programme’s symmetrical analysis, but claims
that it does not go far enough, as it should also apply to both human and non-human actants.140
To maintain their application of a symmetrical approach to all actors involved, ANT’s first wave
constructed a symmetrical vocabulary, derived from Greimas’ work on semiotics, which used the
same words to describe all actors in the network, regardless of the a priori categories to which
they belong.141
Emerging out of STS debates and controversies, ANT both reacted against and utilized
many of the previous paradigms’ innovations in thinking about how science is developed and
maintained. ANT broadened concepts such as symmetrical analysis, which was initially
proposed by the Edinburgh School, to include both human and non-humans. Additionally, ANT
broadened the concepts proposed in various strains of boundary work to erase the boundary
between scales and the social versus scientific divide. The six (albeit somewhat arbitrary)
components described above provide a helpful platform on which to evaluate how ANT changed
during the 1990s and 2000s, as its network began to expand and to thoughtfully incorporate the
criticisms that some theorists launched toward it. The 1990s into the 2000s marked another
period of translation for the theory.
Expansion of a Heterogeneous Network, or ANT 1990 to Post-ANT ANT’s wide diffusion into other disciplines has also mean a wide translation of what it means to
practice the sociology of translation, ANT, or any of the other names assigned to the approach.
Its success is also what brought the post-ANT world into effect; as the theory was incorporated
in new domains (and further institutionalized), it no longer was under the control of its initial
140 Law, John. 2009. "Actor-Network Theory and Material Semiotics." Pp. 141-158 in The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, 3rd Edition, edited by B. S. Turner. Oxford: Blackwell. 141 Greimas, Algirdas Julien. 1979. Dictionnaire de sémiotique. Paris: Hachette.
49
proponents. In short, Callon, Latour, and Law were no longer the obligatory passage points
through which authors had to corroborate their findings in ANT—as its applications broadened,
the theory itself changed. As Cornel Ban, a professor of Development Studies at Brown
University noted, “I think of [ANT] more as an inspiring platform, as opposed to this league of
wise men whose orthodoxy have to end this orthopraxy at all costs. They are not very good at
policing it, which is perhaps why it is such a good floor diagram for exporting their framework in
fields such as mine.”142 Post-ANT refers to the gradual process of reflection by ANT authors in
which they ANT’ed themselves, applying a reflexive lens to their own work.143
For post-ANT, the disciplinary influences that helped to spur change is less defined than
in the first wave of ANT, as many of the additions and changes to the approach have occurred
through applications of ANT to different ethnographic settings, as opposed to the incorporation
of specific theoretical approaches. With that noted, however, approaches such as feminist theory,
postcolonial theory, and the sociology of economics all provided poignant critiques of the
approach, which helped to spur change and development. The general feminist critique—from
authors such as Donna Haraway144—was that ANT was not aware of its own politics and that it
only encompassed the powerful actors into its network (lending itself to a managerialist
technological understanding) and thereby did not account for how the networks differ for those
on the periphery.145 Postcolonial theorists—such as Lee and Brown146—critiqued ANT for
142 Ban, Cornel. 2011. "ANT Interview." edited by S. Evarts. Providence, RI. 143 Gad, Christopher and Casper Bruun Jensen. 2010. "On the Consequences of Post-ANT." Science, Technology & Human Values 35:55-80. 144 Haraway, Donna. 1991. "A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late 20th Century." in Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, edited by D. Haraway. London: Free Association Books; Haraway, Donna. 1991. "Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective." in Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, edited by D. Haraway. London: Free Association Books; Haraway, Donna J. 1997. Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium. FemaleMan©_Meets_OncoMouseTM: feminism and technoscience. London: Routledge. 145 Gad, Christopher and Casper Bruun Jensen. 2010. "On the Consequences of Post-ANT." Science, Technology & Human Values 35:55-80.
50
ignoring elements that could not be incorporated into the network, which contributed to
intellectually and technologically “othering” actors not part of the network, especially in the
Global South.147 These critiques helped to spur discussion of the aspects of ANT that made
incorporation of an ontological reflexivity, and more diffuse network, and a greater
understanding of the “othering” potential of the theory possible.
Along with critiques from feminist and postcolonial theorists, there have been positive
additions to ANT from the sociology of economics (especially in the discussion of
performativity and enactment, which are both central to post-ANT), and from a range of other
disciplines that helped broaden the approach to make it more applicable, both substantively and
methodologically. The new components of post-ANT will be discussed below, and include:
enactment/performance; multiplicity; fluidity; realities and goods; ontological politics; bodies;
spatialities; passions; and last, a new approach to methods, which Law terms as “quiet” methods.
The idea of enactment or performance implies that things do not become real until they
are enacted or performed as such. This is especially true in the case of economics, as shown by
studies concerning the performativity of markets and neoclassical economics.148 While not
explicitly an ANT work (rather, it is influenced by Bourdieu), Garcia’s description of how
strawberries are bought and sold in France’s Fontaine-en-Sologne market provides an excellent
account of the formation of a network composed of a heterogeneous set of actors, which create a
146 Lee, Nick and Steve Brown. 1994. "Otherness and the actor network." American Behavioural Scientist 37:772-790. 147 Law, John. 2009. "Actor-Network Theory and Material Semiotics." Pp. 141-158 in The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, 3rd Edition, edited by B. S. Turner. Oxford: Blackwell. 148 MacKenzie, Donald, Fabian Muniesa, and Lucia Siu. 2007. "Do economists make markets?: on the performativity of economics." Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; Callon, Michel. 1998. "The laws of the markets." Oxford: Blackwell.
51
performative market.149 As Law states, “We are no longer dealing with construction, social or
otherwise: there is no stable prime mover, social or individual, to construct anything, no builder,
no puppeteer.”150 Stability as a thing of itself has been replaced and “rather we are dealing with
enactment or performance.”151
While the first wave of ANT implicitly assumed that there was one network in which
actants related, there has been a move to address the possibilities of there being multiple
networks, as it should not be assumed that translation enacts only one coherent network.152
Annemarie Mol’s book, The Body Multiple, examines the creation of multiple material realities.
She describes the multiple diagnostic and treatment techniques for lower limb atherosclerosis,
depicting four different actor-networks, which may or may not brush up against one another at
points in time (forming a single entity), but are most often separate realities.153
Similar to the first wave’s lack of engaging with multiple realities or networks, it also did
not address how realities are interrelated and how they connect to one another, which occurs
precisely because they are discontinuous and disjointed from one another, but also because they
remain fluid and drift into each other.154 For example, rigid technologies do not simply shift from
149 Garcia-Parpet, Marie-France. 2007. "The social construction of a perfect market: The strawberry auction at Fontaines-en-Sologne." Pp. 20-53 in Do economists make markets?: on the performativity of economics, edited by D. MacKenzie, F. Muniesa, and L. Siu. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 150 Page 151. Law, John. 2009. "Actor-Network Theory and Material Semiotics." Pp. 141-158 in The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, 3rd Edition, edited by B. S. Turner. Oxford: Blackwell. 151 Page 151. Law, John. 2009. "Actor-Network Theory and Material Semiotics." Pp. 141-158 in The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, 3rd Edition, edited by B. S. Turner. Oxford: Blackwell. 152 Law, John. 2009. "Actor-Network Theory and Material Semiotics." Pp. 141-158 in The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, 3rd Edition, edited by B. S. Turner. Oxford: Blackwell. 153 Mol, Annemarie. 2002. The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice, Edited by B. H. Smith and E. R. Weintraub. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. 154 Law, John. 2009. "Actor-Network Theory and Material Semiotics." Pp. 141-158 in The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, 3rd Edition, edited by B. S. Turner. Oxford: Blackwell; Singleton, Vicky and Mike Michael. 1993. "Actor-Networks and Ambivalence: General Practitioners in the UK Cervical Screening Programme." Social Studies of Science 23:227-264; Singleton, Vicky. 1998. "Stabilizing instabilities: the role of the laboratory in the United Kingdom cervical screening programme." Pp. 86-104 in Differences in Medicine: Unraveling Practices, Techniques, and Bodies, edited by M. Berg and A. Mol. Durham, NC: Duke University Press; Latour, Bruno. 1999. "'Thou Shalt Not Take the Lord's Name in Vain': Being a Sort of Sermon on the Hesitations of Religious Speech." RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 39:215-234.
52
one locality into another, but rather become fluid, as shown in Madeleine Akrich’s depicting of a
fluid technology transfer in Zimbabwe.155 Her description of fluid technology is informative,
showing that objects can indeed reconfigure themselves, that different realities are not related on
one another in a necessarily rigid manner, and that networks can be incomplete and exist without
a firm center.156 These three lessons from addressing the fluidity of networks is informative, as
the first wave of ANT was not able to incorporate partial, loose, and decentered networks into
their analysis.
While the fluid nature of the networks is captured in Akrich’s account, the outcome when
alternative realities intersect is not addressed. Charis Thompson shows how such realities are
heterogeneous, consisting of the political, the natural, and the social. In addition, each of these
categories is heterogeneous, consisting of a combination of legal, land use, economic, epistemic,
and moral components. There are ontological (enactment of realities) and epistemological
(knowledge formation) components, but there is also the component of the doing of goods (or
bads), which the material semiotic approach allows to be visualized.157
Post-ANT’s greater reflection on their own ontological politics is influenced by critiques
from both feminist and postcolonial theorists. The role of the researcher in enacting more
networks and realities, while nodded at in the first wave of ANT, was often not explicitly
addressed in ethnographic accounts by ANT theorists.158 The prominent feminist theorist, Donna
155 Akrich, Madeleine. 1992. "The De-Scription of Technical Objects." Pp. 205-224 in Shaping Technology, Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, edited by W. E. Bijker and J. Law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 156 Law, John. 2009. "Actor-Network Theory and Material Semiotics." Pp. 141-158 in The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, 3rd Edition, edited by B. S. Turner. Oxford: Blackwell. 157 Law, John. 2009. "Actor-Network Theory and Material Semiotics." Pp. 141-158 in The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, 3rd Edition, edited by B. S. Turner. Oxford: Blackwell; Thompson, Charis. 2002. "When elephants stand for competing philosophies of nature: Amboseli National Park, Kenya." Pp. 166-190 in Complexity in Science, Technology, and Medicine, edited by J. Law and A. Mol. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. 158 Law, John. 2009. "Actor-Network Theory and Material Semiotics." Pp. 141-158 in The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, 3rd Edition, edited by B. S. Turner. Oxford: Blackwell.
53
Haraway, was much more aware of ontological politics in her material semiotic works in the
early 1990s, which critiqued ANT for not taking into account their own ontological politics.159
Performativity makes doing research and enacting theory a project that creates its own realities;
it has no innocence.
Gomart’s analysis of the bodily interpretations of ANT is a helpful addition to the post-
ANT corpus.160 In the study, Gomart analyzes the difference between methadone and heroin, in
terms of how it is perceived and how it acts on patients’ bodies, finding that there are too many
variations in how they do and do not differ that it cannot just be attributed to different
interpretations. ANT guides the author in their search for how these drugs are enacted in the
patients’ bodies and how they are brought into action by the various heterogeneous elements of
the network.
ANT’s treatment of spatial connections and spatialities constitutes a new form of
geography, as detailed by Murdoch’s analysis of how space has been treated in ANT, depicting
two main forms: “spaces of prescription” and “spaces of negotiation.”161 Spaces of prescription
denote a more traditional sense of space, meaning fixed coordinates and perhaps a Euclidean
sensibility. Spaces of negotiation, on the other hand, denote a more metaphorical or rhizomic
spatiality in which memberships and associations are negotiated and reconfigured.162 Law and
159 Haraway, Donna. 1991. "A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late 20th Century." in Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, edited by D. Haraway. London: Free Association Books; Haraway, Donna. 1991. "Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective." in Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, edited by D. Haraway. London: Free Association Books. 160 Gomart, Emilie. 2002. "Methadone: Six Effects in Search of a Substance." Social Studies of Science 32:93-135. 161 Murdoch, Jonathan. 1998. "The spaces of actor-network theory." Geoforum 29:357-374. 162 Hetherington, Kevin. 1997. The badlands of modernity: heterotopia and social ordering. London: Routledge.
54
Mol also take up this issue in their article on how the universal gets transposed to local
spatialities, which deserve more focus and analysis.163
Passions have also been incorporated into ANT, for example, through a discussion of
music lovers and of drug addicts.164 In this example, the incorporation of passions into post-ANT
is done by analyzing the heterogeneous elements that help to support ones taste for and
attachment to a certain item—how is it that mere appreciation for an intangible thing (in his case,
music) can become all consuming and enroll actants beyond just oneself? The answer to this
question, Hennion replies, is in the interaction with the object of desire; it is in that interaction
that the appreciation is enacted.
Law critiques the “methodological hegemony or (even worse) monopoly” that pervades
the social sciences and applies a reflexive eye to ANT’s dogmatic reliance on a material-semiotic
approach to studying realities or networks.165 Methods help to produce the reality they purport to
understand, but while this may be true, such methods are not necessarily wholly bad, but are ill
equipped to study “the ephemeral, the indefinite and the irregular.”166
Conclusions
This chapter traced the emergence of STS that developed from the ongoing debate
between the sociology of knowledge and the philosophy of science. During the 1930s the general
perspectives on how science was practiced and evolved drew heavily from both logical
positivism and falsificationism. While Mannheim’s relationism and Fleck’s thought collectives
163 Law, John and Annemarie Mol. 2001. "Situating technoscience: an inquiry into spatialities." Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 19:609-621. 164 Hennion, Antoine. 2001. "Music lovers. Taste as performance." Theory, Culture & Society 18:1-22. 165 Page 4. Law, John. 2004. After Method: Mess in Social Science Research, Edited by J. Urry. New York: Routledge. 166 Page 4. Law, John. 2004. After Method: Mess in Social Science Research, Edited by J. Urry. New York: Routledge.
55
foreshadowed a more constructivist approach to science and technology, they were not
influential schools of thought and were only taken into account after WWII, by Robert Merton,
who recognized Mannheim’s relationist perspective, but posited that science did not arise from
the same ideological foundations as other disciplines because of four norms that dominated:
universalism, communism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism.167 Arising out of
positivist approaches to science and technology, Merton’s structural functionalism would prove
to be quite influential in future STS research on how science and technology become
institutionalized, appropriated, and received by both scientific and non-scientific groups.
Another influential precursor to STS was Thomas Kuhn’s work on paradigm shifts,
which has since been labeled the “Kuhnian revolution”. Influenced by Fleck’s focus on how
observations are shaped by theory, Kuhn argued against both logical positivism and
falsificationism, putting the logical positivist Karl Popper in historical context. Kuhn saw science
as occurring through a series of paradigm shifts, which occur when one paradigm can no longer
adequately explain the building inconsistencies in data and which help to explain those
inconsistencies better than the previous paradigm. How the paradigms get shaped and
institutionalized proved to be fecund ground for future STS research, making Kuhn a major
precursor to contemporary manifestations of STS.
The historical context surrounding STS’s development is significant, as the 1960s marked
a period in which other disciplines were reflexively acknowledging their historicity, helping to
instigate greater introspection within studies on science and technology. This is partly seen in the
work of Gieryn, a student of Merton’s who broke away from the structural functionalist approach
in his explorations of how disciplinary boundaries are created and maintain. Gieryn’s “boundary
167 Merton, Robert K. 1973. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, Edited by N. W. Storer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
56
work” proved to be quite influential in future STS works, as it has now embraced the
deconstruction of many boundaries (such as those between true and false statements, or between
science and its context) across the wide variety of approaches to STS.168
Reacting more directly against structural functionalism, but also incorporating studies on
technology, the sociology of science, and other disciplines, STS codified into an interdisciplinary
field. This new field can loosely be divided into two main approaches, the first concerned more
with the application, appropriation, and institutionalization of science and technology, and the
second more concerned with how scientific and technological knowledge is produced. While
there is obviously overlap between the two categories, it is helpful to divide the two into studies
focusing more on the larger issues surrounding science and technology—e.g., in the public
understanding of science (PUS)—and studies focusing on a more ethnographic description and
explanation of how science gets enacted—e.g., in laboratory studies.
ANT emerged from the STS strand that focuses more on how science is made, putting a
greater emphasis on ethnographic research methods that brought researchers to conduct more
research on how knowledge was actually produced, as demonstrated in laboratory studies.
Within this strand there was more concern for how scientists related to each other, their
surroundings, and that which they were studying, and how those interactions shaped the
development of scientific research in certain ways. The Edinburgh and Bath schools of the
sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK), while existing prior to the formal codification of STS,
have been quite influential since them and developed what is now known as the “Strong
Programme,” which stipulated four principles that would provide a guide on how to study
scientific knowledge. These principles were immensely important for how future STS works
168 Roosth, Sophia and Susan Silbey. 2009. "Science and Technology Studies: From Controversies to Posthumanist Social Theory." Pp. 452-473 in The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, 3rd Edition, edited by B. S. Turner. Oxford: Blackwell.
57
framed their argument and were: concern with the conditions that help to create certain
knowledge claims; treatment of both true and false claims in the same fashion; explanation of
different belief systems symmetrically; and last, the aim to apply its principles reflexively.
The Strong Programme influenced studies on boundary work, such as between basic and
applied science, or between science in the Global North and the Global South. Thus, ANT
emerged from a cross-disciplinary discussion that took into account a greater emphasis on
ethnographic methods, insights from the Strong Programme (although it vehemently disagreed
with certain of their points), and a continuation of boundary work. From outside the immediate
purview of STS, ANT was also influenced by French poststructuralist theory, along with some of
the philosophers of science, such as Greimas or Serres. ANT distinguished itself from previous
studies on STS by pushing the Strong Programme’s concept of symmetry to a generalized
level—ANT theorists proposed that not only should different belief systems be explained
symmetrically, but that human and non-human actors should also be explained symmetrically
and that the Strong Programme put too much emphasis on providing social explanations, which
they saw as one more black box.
The story of how science and technology studies was born sheds light on the
heterogeneous disciplinary soup that make up both STS and ANT’s approaches to studying
science and technology. The first wave of ANT stays true to its interdisciplinary foundations, but
remains generally focused on science and technology, while the second wave of ANT has
percolated into other disciplines that at first glace would have little in common with STS-like
approaches.
58
Influential in the first wave of ANT was the English STS, such as the Edinburgh and
Bath Schools, French poststructuralist theory, and U.S. large technological systems research.169
From English STS ANT borrowed a commitment to symmetrical analysis and a development of
theory through empirical research. The French poststructuralist theory provided the bread and
butter of ANT, which is a material-semiotic approach that emphasizes approaching research in a
non-foundational manner. Work on large technological systems, such as that of the historian of
technology Thomas Hughes,170 is seen in ANT’s even-handed analysis of all parts of such large
systems, which they are able to do in a way that side-steps the macro-micro divide usually found
in sociology.171
From these influential perspectives, the first wave of ANT developed a number of
important characteristics and approaches that would separate it from the rest of STS (making
ANT a relatively controversial approach). The first is Callon and Latour’s idea of translation,
which helps to explain how actors are mobilized into a network and both change and are changed
by their material-semiotic surroundings. As noted with translation, the second important
approach that defines the first wave of ANT is that of maintaining a semiotic relationality by not
assigning roles and identities a priori, but rather letting them emerge on their own. The networks
that arise from successful (and unsuccessful) translations are in themselves not strong, but
depend on many ties and connections in order to survive—the strong man’s history is no longer
appropriate in this context. Fourth, ANT authors emphasized the need for researchers to maintain
a free association, meaning that they should not have any a priori assumptions about the nature
169 Law, John. 2009. "Actor-Network Theory and Material Semiotics." Pp. 141-158 in The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, 3rd Edition, edited by B. S. Turner. Oxford: Blackwell. 170 Hughes, Thomas Parke. 1983. Networks of Power: Electrification in Western society, 1880-1930. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. 171 Law, John. 2009. "Actor-Network Theory and Material Semiotics." Pp. 141-158 in The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, 3rd Edition, edited by B. S. Turner. Oxford: Blackwell.
59
of the network or the boundaries between categories, such as the natural, social, and
technological worlds. Agnosticism, the fifth component, requires the researcher to remain
impartial to all actors under study, which is reminiscent of the Strong Programme’s analysis of
both true and false statements in the same manner. The sixth innovation is a generalized
symmetry, which pushes the Strong Programme’s symmetrical analysis of belief systems to
include all actors, both human and non-human. John Law describes these six principles as
forming what he calls, “ANT 1990” to describe the general assortment of principles and methods
that defined the first wave of ANT.172 However, during the 1990s and into the 2000s, ANT was
questioned more reflexively from both within and outside of its field. This progression can be
dubbed the second wave of ANT or post-ANT.
The second wave of ANT can be seen as a reorganization and reinterpretation of ANT’s
ontology and epistemology. Critiques from feminists such as Haraway or Star,173 or from
postcolonial theorists such as Lee and Brown,174 helped to make ANT question its approaches.
ANT was critiqued for having too managerialist approach to power; for not being aware of its
own ontological politics; and for excluding the “other” from its network, especially with regard
to the Global North and South divisions. These critiques were internalized in the discussion and
by 1999 some of ANT’s “founding fathers” were renouncing the approach completely (only to
take it back a few years later).175
172 Law, John. 2009. "Actor-Network Theory and Material Semiotics." Pp. 141-158 in The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, 3rd Edition, edited by B. S. Turner. Oxford: Blackwell. 173 Haraway, Donna J. 1997. Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium. FemaleMan©_Meets_OncoMouseTM: feminism and technoscience. London: Routledge; Star, Susan L. 1991. "Power, technology and the phenomenology of conventions: on being allergic to onions." Pp. 26-56 in A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, edited by J. Law. London: Routledge. 174 Lee, Nick and Steve Brown. 1994. "Otherness and the actor network." American Behavioural Scientist 37:772-790. 175 See Latour, Bruno. 1999. "On Recalling ANT." Pp. 15-25 in Actor-Network Theory and after, Sociological Review Monographs, edited by J. Law and J. Hassard. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
60
Revisions and additions to ANT during the second wave include:
enactment/performance; multiplicity; fluidity; realities and goods; ontological politics; bodies;
spatialities; passions; and last, a revised approach to methodology, which Law terms as “quiet”
methods. These additions have helped spread ANT to other disciplines from its base in STS;
however, it has also been informed by those expansions and continues to be shaped and reshaped
by the insights that other disciplinary approaches can offer. As Brad Sekedat, an Archeology
PhD candidate a Brown University, noted in an interview, while ANT is becoming more
integrated into Archeology,
It definitely felt initially [as if I was being put into an “out there” box] … I still think that it is considered one extreme version of some kind of social theory. I think in archeology what some people struggle with is that Actor-Network Theory is not some kind of explanation for why something is the way that is it, so much as it…answers more the how than the why. Archeology being part of the social sciences is very concerned with explaining patterns rather than describing patterns and so some people have said, ‘how does this change what I do in the field?’ and it doesn’t have to, so there is some confusion about how to bring it into archeology. From that perspective it tends to be seen as not really mainstream. …But it is getting broadened as more people like Chris Witmore [who introduced him to ANT] come in and teach the theoretical side of it. The more exposure people get the more confortable they are with it.176 The next chapter takes up the question of how ANT has traveled from its incubator in
Europe to having its broadest citation base in the United States. How has ANT traveled from
subject area to subject area? How has it traveled across time and place? Which countries cite the
authors most in which subjects? Such questions will be answered using a bibliometric analysis
that tracks the evolution of ANT from a more quantitative lens. While the present chapter traced
ANT’s intellectual and disciplinary grounding, along with the continuing evolution within the
approach itself, it cannot answer how ANT is actually percolating out, which the next chapter
hopes to address.
176 Sekedat, Bradley. 2011. "ANT Interview." edited by S. Evarts. Providence, RI.
61
CHAPTER 3: ANT’s Transatlantic Voyage
All projects are stillborn at the outset. Existence has to be added to them continuously, so they can take on body, can impose their growing coherence on those who argue about them or oppose them. No project is born profitable, effective, or brilliant, any more than the Amazon at its source has the massive dimensions it takes on at its mouth.177
Introduction Let us assume that Actor-Network Theory (ANT) was mostly stillborn when Michel Callon,
Bruno Latour, and John Law gave it the first flicker of its reality during the early 1980s in Paris
(although it had been percolating for some years prior). As Chapter 2 demonstrated, ANT’s
grounding in previous studies on science and technology perhaps helped to steer it toward
becoming real instead of remaining stillborn. However, merely hatching in a favorable
theoretical womb is no guarantee of relevance. Indeed, such a favorable climate could just as
plausibly make it harder, as it could incite greater competition. Thus, it makes little sense to
classify ANT as a codified anything when it first appeared—it was still an artifact, waiting to be
taken up by future users and made real. This chapter tracks ANT’s life history at the international
level by using a bibliometric analysis of authors that cite at least one of either Callon, Latour, or
Law’s works from 1973 to 2010.
There are two ways to address how Actor-Network Theory (ANT) has progressed from
its inception in the 1980s to its current manifestation today: the first is to look at how the theory
changed during the past 20-30 years, which is what Chapter 2 endeavors to do; and the second is
to look at where it has traveled, which is what this chapter and Chapter 4 endeavor to do. In
177 Page 78-9. Latour, Bruno. 1996. Aramis, or the Love of Technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
62
order to do this, it is necessary to artificially speak of ANT as a single entity—able to be picked
up and carried across disciplines, time, and countries. The previous chapter portrayed ANT as a
heterogeneous and multifaceted quasi-entity, which is much closer to what it is; however, this
chapter treats ANT as more of a commodity, for the simple reason that it is not the purpose of the
present bibliometric analysis to show ANT’s heterogeneity; its purpose is to show how and to
where ANT has traveled. It has changed substantially since Michel Callon first coined the term
in 1982, but that change rests in part of how its has moved.178
The conventional story on how Actor-Network Theory was born reads somewhat like a
creation myth. At the Centre de Sociologie de l'Innovation (CSI) of the École nationale
supérieure des mines de Paris, from around 1978 to 1983, three scholars (two French, one
English), who were all frustrated with the state of affairs in the study of science and technology
came together and began to imagine alternative accounts of how scientific controversies become
settled. It was informed by insights developed in poststructuralism (e.g. the non-foundational and
material-semiotic approach), as well as by the American contributions to Science and
Technology Studies (STS) (e.g. the emphasis on ethnographic and qualitative studies of how
science is made), but also from European strands of STS, such as the Strong Programme.179
While ANT emerged out of Science and Technology Studies (STS), it has since shifted to
have applicability throughout the social sciences, as opposed to just focusing on scientific and
technological issues. However, the way that ANT has shifted changes according to the place to
which it has shifted; this is not surprising, but gives one an indication of how local epistemic
communities figure into the development of a theory’s applicability to a certain subject. For
178 Law, John. "Actor-Network Theory and Material Semiotics." In The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, 3rd Edition, edited by Bryan S. Turner, 141-58. Oxford: Blackwell, 2008. 179 Law, John. "Actor-Network Theory and Material Semiotics." In The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, 3rd Edition, edited by Bryan S. Turner, 141-58. Oxford: Blackwell, 2008.
63
instance, in England, ANT is often used in Geography, while in northern Europe it is used more
in Management Studies, and in the United States it is primarily used in the History and
Philosophy of Science and in Sociology (See, for example, Graph 6, Graph 8, Graph 4, and
Graph 2 in Appendix A). More specifically, certain authors have more resonance than others in
certain continents and subject areas. Thus, one can approach the question of ANT’s chronology
from a variety of perspectives, such as: geographic progression of the theory; subjects that the
theory can address; and relationship the theory has with the outside academic community. All
three of these perspectives will help sketch out the progression of an inchoate theory, which has
been adopted and disowned at various points in time by its own makers.
Methodology and Case Selection In order to address how ANT shifted across space, time, and subject areas, I employ ANT’s
directive to “follow the actors themselves.”180 The actors followed in this study are multiple and
include the publications of Callon, Latour, and Law; the papers in which those publications are
cited; and the countries, subject areas, institutions, and journals in which the citing papers
appear. To follow these actors, I collected and analyzed bibliometric data on Callon, Latour, and
Law’s works from the early 1973 to 2011 as an indicator of how ANT has developed.
This technique is known as “ego-centered citation analysis”, a term coined by Howard D.
White when describing the technique of starting an analysis from one author and tracing out the
linkages and impact that the author has had.181 Because ANT is largely associated with the work
of these three authors, tracking the citations of these three authors gives insight into how the 180 Page 12. Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, USA. 181 White, Howard D. "Toward Ego-Centered Citation Analysis." In The Web of Knowledge: A Festschrift in Honor of Eugene Garfield, edited by Blaise Cronin and Helen Borsky Atkins, 475-96. Medford, NJ: Information Today, 2000; Nisonger, Thomas E. "Citation Autobiography: An Investigation of ISI Database Coverage in Determining Author Citedness." College & Research Libraries 65, no. 2 (2004): 152-63.
64
theory has diffused and progressed from country to country (followed in this chapter) and within
the United States (followed in Chapter 4). While other authors have certainly contributed to the
theory’s development (e.g. Annemarie Mol, Weibe Bijker, Jonathan Murdoch, or Vicky
Singleton, to name a few), such authors are not included, as much of the controversy and fanfare
about the theory has been aimed at one or more of the three authors (e.g. at Bruno Latour by
Pierre Bourdieu182). Thus, I track the evolution of the three authors for a sense of how the theory
has progressed.
The bibliometric database used for this project was the ISI Web of Science “Cited
Reference Search” function, which allowed me to search for the authors’ names within a
specified range of years. Three citation databases were used to complete the search of relevant
works: the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), which provided citations from
1973 to the present day; the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), which provided citations
from 1973 to the present day; and the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI), which
provided citations from 1975 to the present day.
The following terms were used for each author: “CALLON M” for Michel Callon,
“LATOUR B” for Bruno Latour, and “LAW J” for John Law. As it has been noted that ISI Web
of Science only offers an incomplete tracking of authors’ works,183 I have checked each entry and
recorded which works from which author I am using in my analysis. All works that were listed as
“IN PRESS” or “UNPUBLISHED”, along with those that could not be verified were not
included in the analysis. This required, as Bar-llan (2006) notes in his paper on ego-centric
citation analysis using (among other sources) ISI Web of Science, some serious “detective work”
to find out which article was cited in each case, as the abbreviations used for cited works varies
182 Bourdieu, Pierre. Science of Science and Reflexivity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2004. 183 Nisonger, Thomas E. "Citation Autobiography: An Investigation of ISI Database Coverage in Determining Author Citedness." College & Research Libraries 65, no. 2 (2004): 152-63.
65
and is often complicated by incomplete or misspellings present in the original document.184 Each
author was searched individually and the cited works were all verified manually to ensure that
only works that were by one of the three authors were included [see Appendix B-D for list of
included works by each author]. As the accuracy of ISI Web of Science in determining the
author’s actual identity has been critiqued in the past years,185 the extra step of verification and
cataloguing cited works that I took can reasonably be expected to decrease the rates of error the
would have occurred if I had purely relied on ISI Web of Science’s ability to distinguish between
authors.
I completed one search for both Michel Callon and John Law. However, as Bruno Latour
had too many citations to be included in only one search—ISI Web of Knowledge can only
process 500 checked boxes at a time—I split Bruno Latour’s citation analysis into five cited year
categories: 1974-1986, 1987-1991, 1992-1996, 1997-2003, and 2004-2011. I carried out the
same series of analysis for each of the year categories and manually combined them after culling
out the needed data, resulting in the same result as if I had analyzed the entire dataset at the same
time.
After selecting the cited works to be included in the analysis, I analyzed the works that
had cited at least one of the cited works on the ISI Web of Science website. The number of cited
works and of works citing the cited works are shown for each author in the table below [See
Table 1 in Appendix A]:
Table 1: Data Collection for ISI Web of Science Data Collection Michel Callon Bruno Latour John Law Total for each # Cited Works (CWs) 139 203 98 440 # Works Citing the Cited 3,490 14,289 2,518 20,297
184 Page 1156. Bar-Ilan, Judit. "An Ego-Centric Citation Analysis of the Works of Michael O. Rabin Based on Multiple Citation Indexes." Information Processing & Management 42, no. 6 (2006): 1553-66. 185 Moed, Henk F. "The Impact-Factors Debate: The ISI's Uses and Limits." Nature 415, no. 6873 (2002): 731-32.
66
Works (WCCWs) A total of 20,297 works were listed as citing at least one of Callon, Latour, or Law’s works,
which were further refined by document type (only including the categories of article, editorial
material, discussion, proceedings paper, book review, letter, review, or note). Additionally, in
order to avoid counting self-citations, I excluded the WCCWs that were written by the author
being analyzed (e.g., Michel Callon was excluded as an author in the WCCWs when I was
analyzing his CWs). Thus, the numbers listed in the table above do not include works that do not
fall into the specifications.
For the analysis of the geographic progression of ANT, data on the WCCWs was
collected from the ISI Web of Science Analyze Data function. The following parameters were
included in the analysis: country, year, subject area, source title (i.e. the name of the journal in
which the article was published), and the institution from which the author originated. This data
was recorded and various graphs were made that compared the categories across both time and
geographic locality.
On ANT’s Spread Across Time
Tracking the number of new references to the works of Callon, Latour, and Law that
occur each year provides an indication of whether the theory has spread in recent years. Other
studies have shown that such an analysis can give illustrative data on the growing (or waning)
popularity of the works that certain authors have published.186 The increase shown in the analysis
could be attributed to the actual increase in citations, or the relative bias towards certain journals
in which the papers were published beginning in the early 1990s. If the results show a real
186 De Bakker, Frank G. A., Peter Groenewegen, and Frank Den Hond. "A Bibliometric Analysis of 30 Years of Research and Theory on Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Social Performance." Business Society 44 (2005): 283-317.
67
increase in the number of citations per year, the results are significant, as it shows that the
increase occurs in all three authors, but that the increase does not occur at the same time for the
three authors.
Graph 1 in Appendix A shows how the number of citations per year varies according to
the three authors. John Law has the fewest citations in aggregate, with Michel Callon following,
and Bruno Latour with the most citations per year. There are relatively fewer citations for all
three authors throughout the 1970s and 1980s, with Bruno Latour a little higher than the other
two during the 1980s. During the 1990s, both John Law and Michel Callon steadily gain more
citations without a dramatic increase. However, it is striking to see the dramatic increase in
citations that Bruno Latour experiences throughout the 1990s. Latour’s citations increase at an
even greater rate from 2000/2001 to around 2006, at which point his works experience a great
increase in their citations, increasing by more than 50 percent in only two to three years. Latour’s
citations peak at 2009, decreasing slightly in 2010.
While less striking, both John Law and Michel Callon also experience a notable rise in
their citations beginning around 2001 and continuing to 2009 before experiencing a small drop
during 2010, much like Latour. John Law has more citations than either Callon or Latour during
the 1970s, but does not rise as quickly until 1991, when his citations begin to increase steadily
throughout the 1990s, increasing at a higher rate after 2000. Michel Callon mirrors the citation
count of John Law, except has a consistently higher number of citations per year.
Most notable is Bruno Latour’s jump in citation count after about 1987. For example,
from 1980 to 1986, Latour had around 35-45 citations per year, while from 2007-2010 he had
around 1,125 to 1,440 citations a year. Much like the phenomenon of a video “going viral” (or
just a virus going viral), it seems that as Latour was cited more, it spurred more and more
68
citations, eventually leading to an increase from 857 citations in 2006 to 1,438 citations in 2008.
This particular graph does not provide enough data to make any inferences about why this might
be the case; however, if one breaks down the categories into subject area and/or country, it
becomes more possible to infer how Latour’s works experienced such an increase in citation
count throughout the 1990s and in particular in the 2000s.
The general trends that this graph shows are that over the years all three authors have
increased in the number of citations their works get each year. However, both John Law and
Michel Callon have significantly fewer citations a year when compared to Bruno Latour and do
not experience the same sharp increase that does Bruno Latour throughout the 1990s and 2000s.
All three authors see a decrease in the number of citations during 2010 when compared to 2009.
However, the reason for this may not necessarily be that they were cited less, but rather, that the
software used to gather their citation data had not yet uploaded all of the data for 2010, giving an
artificially low number. The fact that all three authors decrease in citation count during 2010
when compared to 2009 indicates that the ISI Web of Knowledge database might be slow in
getting the new citations, as opposed to it being a reflection on the actual citation counts of the
authors’ works.
On ANT’s International Travels Tracking the geographic diffusion of ANT requires not only data on the countries that cite
Callon, Latour, and Law most (although it is a helpful starting point from which to think about
the geographic diffusion of the theory), but also requires data that links such differences in
countries to the specific years, changes in which countries are represented most in which years,
and in the subject areas most used in which countries, along with how that varies by year.
69
The geographic differences within the authors of ANT is shown in Table 2 and Table 3 in
Appendix A, which depict the top 11 countries in total citations according to various author
combinations. Both Michel Callon and John Law have most often been cited in England with
the USA as second highest, while Bruno Latour has most often been cited in the United States
with England as second highest. The difference between Latour’s citations in England and the
United States is striking: he has 50 percent more citations in the United States than in England,
constituting 33 percent and 22 percent of his total citations, respectively.
For the combination of all three authors the top 11 countries with authors citing one of
their works is as follows: USA (6,040), England (4,994), Canada (1,563), France (1,317), the
Netherlands (1,026), Australia (989), Germany (817), Scotland (521), Sweden (497), Denmark
(465), and Wales (363). However, when Bruno Latour is removed, as his many citations sway
any analysis towards where his works have been cited, the result changes. When only Callon and
Law are combined, the top 11 countries do not change, but the order in which they occur does,
changing to: England (1761), USA (1231), France (583), Canada (407), the Netherlands (403),
Australia (359), Germany (209), Scotland (192), Sweden (158), Denmark (135), and Wales
(129). The differences between the two combination of authors is only seen in the most cited
countries, with the only significant change being that England is the first, while the United States
is second. Another interesting difference is that France is third, as opposed to Canada in the
combination with Latour’s citations present. This is mainly due to the fact that many of Michel
Callon’s articles have been cited by French authors—507 of the 583 citations are a result of
Callon, while only 76 are from John Law’s citations.
However, while such tables can give one a general idea of which countries which authors
tend to be cited in, it does not provide any information on why this might be the case, nor on how
70
this trend has changed over time, if at all. To do this, one needs to address the subject areas in
which these authors are cited, and how that changed over both time and country. A general
appraisal of the differences between countries based on subject area provides an interesting
comparison and is a necessary step before combining all three layers of analysis.
On ANT’s Disciplinary Moves While ANT emerged out of the Science & Technology Studies (STS) discipline, since the
beginning of the 1990s, it has started to be applied to a wide range of different subject areas, a
development that has been noted by various authors.187 Such a transformation is interesting, as it
is illustrative of some of the most alluring properties of the theory, such as its lack of any
codified theoretical base, making it more of an approach than an actual theory. For example,
Latour’s book, Reassembling the Social, synthesizes, refocuses, and revises ANT in order to help
sociology reassemble the black box of the social, as opposed to solely reassembling
technological black boxes.188 He argues that approaching a sociological research project from an
ANT perspective—or taking an associational approach, as he (re)terms it—can provide a way
out of having to take the black box concepts of the social for granted. The shift from using ANT
to explain technological controversies and change to using it to explain the social is a large one
and deserves investigation in its own right. How and when did ANT break out of its STS shell
and permeate the wide variety of disciplines it occupies today? When did it become used in
certain disciplines and how do those vary by country? To answer such questions, it is necessary
to break down each subject area and trace its evolution through both time and space.
187 Sismondo, Sergio. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2010; Thrift, Nigel. "The Place of Complexity." Theory, Culture, and Society 16, no. 3 (1999): 39. 188 Latour, Bruno. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory, Clarendon Lectures in Management Studies. New York: Oxford University Press, USA, 2005.
71
Before pursuing a more complicated analysis into the combination of change over time
with regard to countries, it is helpful to understand the similarities and differences between the
three authors with regard to subject area distribution and use, as seen through a descriptive
analysis of their most cited subject areas. Bruno Latour is most cited in Sociology (1921);
History and Philosophy of Science (1722); Geography (1463); Management (1128);
Environmental Studies (874); Anthropology (865); Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary (761);
Education and Educational Research (759); Information Science and Library Science (696); and
Communication (500) [See Table 4 in Appendix A].
However, these citations in the subject areas did not all occur at the same time, as Chart 1
in Appendix A demonstrates. Chart 1 shows that Bruno Latour first appeared in works classified
as Sociology or the History and Philosophy of Science in 1980. Management as a subject area
citing Latour first appeared in 1984, with Geography and Environmental Studies following at
1990. What this graph shows is that there was a movement of Latour’s works into other subject
areas that did not happen immediately, but rather took a spread of ten years to occur. Throughout
the 1980s, Latour’s works were beginning to be used in areas other than in STS—a discipline
that could be classified into either the History and Philosophy of Science or the Sociology
subject areas. I made the start year charts by finding the first year of the top six subject areas that
had two citations or more. The two citation cut-off point was used instead of the one-citation cut-
off point because there are sometimes citations that fall into one subject area, which are then
followed by years where there are no citations in the area, making it less indicative of a spread in
subject area relevance than two citations in one year would be.
Michel Callon’s top subject areas are similar to those of Latour, yet have some important
differences. The top ten subject areas in Callon’s citation analysis are as follows: Sociology
72
(637); Management (524); Information Science & Library Science (397); Geography (350);
History and Philosophy of Science (286); Environmental Studies (220); Social Science,
Interdisciplinary (197); Planning and Development (191); Economics (169); Computer Science,
Information Systems (164) [See Table 5 in Appendix A].
As mentioned with Bruno Latour, the top ten citations by year do not fully illustrate the
dimensions of Callon’s subject areas, as it does not take into account the years in which such
subject areas became more prevalent. The starting dates for Callon’s top six subject areas is
shown in Chart 2 in Appendix A. Similar to Latour, the two subject areas that have been citing
Callon for the longest period of time are Sociology and History and Philosophy of Science,
respectively. The first citations for Sociology occurred in 1980, while the first citation for the
History and Philosophy of Science occurred in 1982. Information Science and Library Science
followed in 1983, with Management in 1988, Geography in 1994, and Environmental Studies in
1995.
While John Law’s top ten subject areas by citation count are similar in a broad sense to
Latour and Callon’s top ten subject area lists, it also has some important differences to either of
the two. The results are located in Table 6 in Appendix A. In descending order they are
Geography (422); Sociology (401); Management (323); History & Philosophy of Science (272);
Environmental Studies (235); Information Science & Library Science (151); Social Sciences,
Interdisciplinary (128); Social Issues (102); Planning and Development (92); and Education &
Educational Research (91). As opposed to both Latour and Callon, the most common subject
area that cites John Law’s work is Geography, rather than Sociology. This is significant, as
Geography ranks third in both Callon and Latour’s subject area lists. Interestingly, Geography
(ranking first) and Management (ranking third) are both subject areas that have the most
73
dominance in England, as opposed to the United States. John Law’s works are generally cited
more often in England than in the United States, which could explain the increased number of
citations for these subjects.
Education and Educational Research is Law’s tenth most cited subject area (even though
it only contains 91 citations) and Latour’s eighth most cited subject area, but ranks a paltry
twentieth in Michel Callon’s citations. This is most likely due to a difference in specific focus of
each author’s works; however, there could be other possible explanations, such as the secondary
citations that each author receives, which may lead fewer people to examine their original work
after seeing it cited in another work. A secondary citation analysis could shed light on this issue.
The starting years for different disciplines within John Law’s citations shows an
interesting divide between subject areas in terms of when they were first used [this is shown in
Chart 3, located in Appendix A]. The first to be cited more than twice in a given year is the
History and Philosophy of Science, which was cited in 1974. In 1975 Sociology was cited, with
Information and Library Science following soon after in 1978. There is then a gap of 14 years
between that and when Management was first cited in 1992. Geography followed in 1994, with
Environmental Studies in 1995. The gap is significant not only because of the distance in years,
but also because of the distance in subject matter. The first three are all subject areas that could
all be classified under the umbrella of STS. The second group, however, represent a more diverse
way of using ANT. Sociology is perhaps one of the more vague subject areas, as it could easily
encompass STS-related topics, as well as other, more far reaching topics, which could possibly
explain why it remains second on John Law’s top ten subject area lists, even though the more
diversified subject areas (Geography and Management) rank first and third, respectively.
74
The analysis and interpretation of the subject areas shifts within ANT show how ANT
became used in ways outside of a strictly STS discipline throughout the 1980s, expanding
rapidly during the 1990s. While there are similarities among all three authors, there are some
telling differences that help to shed light on how the geographic orientation and subject area
coincide (or do not coincide) depending on the author. Subject areas such as Sociology; the
History and Philosophy of Science; Geography; Management; Environmental Studies; Social
Sciences, Interdisciplinary; and Information Science and Library Science, are common to all
authors (albeit in different orders) in their top ten subject area list. However, there are also
subject areas that are only common to two authors, such as Education and Educational Research,
which only Bruno Latour and John Law share, and Planning and Development, which only
Michel Callon and John Law share. The subject areas that are specific to only one author are
Anthropology, to Bruno Latour; Communication, also to Bruno Latour; Economics, to Michel
Callon; Computer Science, Information Systems, to Michel Callon; and Social Issues, to John
Law.
The years that the authors’ works were cited in certain subject areas all have some
similarities, if one examines the top six and ignores Anthropology in Bruno Latour’s citations (as
it is not in the other authors’ top ten list), and also ignores the lack of Information Science and
Library Science in Bruno Latour’s citations, as it is not in his top six. Comparing across the
categories, one sees that each subject area progresses in a very similar manner (with some minor
variations) between all three authors. The trend shows that either Sociology or the History and
Philosophy of Science are cited first, around the late 1970s or 1980. For Michel Callon and John
Law, Information and Library Science is third to come, arriving in 1983 and 1979, respectively.
For Bruno Latour, Anthropology is the third, appearing in 1982. For all three authors,
75
Management is the fourth subject area, appearing in 1984 (Latour), in 1988 (Callon), and in 1992
(Law). Fifth is Geography, appearing in 1990 (Latour) and in 1994 (Callon and Law). Sixth is
Environmental Studies, which appears in 1990 (Latour) and in 1995 (Callon and Law). The
parity shown across all three authors indicates that the diffusion in subject area that the citation
analysis shows actually occurred for ANT as a whole.
Specific Subject Areas The top six subject areas (listed in order of most to least prevalent) in the combined citation
analysis of Michel Callon, Bruno Latour, and John Law are addressed below. As Bruno Latour’s
citations so outweigh even the combination of Callon’s and Law’s citations, the citation analysis
was also carried out for the latter two authors, coming up with the same top six categories, but
with some differences in order. The order of subject area for the three-author combination
citation analysis is sociology; history and philosophy of science; geography; management;
environmental studies; information science and library science; and social sciences,
interdisciplinary. For the combination of Callon and Law, the citation analysis is sociology;
management; geography; history and philosophy of science; information science and library
science; environmental studies; and social sciences, interdisciplinary. They are analyzed below.
Sociology The most common subject area in which ANT is cited for both the three-author
combination (Callon, Latour, and Law) and the two-author combination (Callon and Law) of
citation analysis is Sociology. The top ten countries for the three-author combination [Graph 2 in
Appendix A] are as follows: United States (841), England (705), France (345), Germany (245),
Canada (159), Australia (145), Netherlands (113), Wales (66), Denmark (55), and Sweden (48).
76
As Graph 2 shows, there is a quick drop-off in the number of citations after the United States and
England.
However, when Latour is excluded from the analysis the data changes and has a different
layout [Graph 3 in Appendix A]: England (274), USA (219), France (173), Germany (76),
Australia (64), Canada (43), Netherlands (36), Wales (24), Scotland (23), and Denmark (16).
This graph shows that as opposed to the United States citing the most articles within the
Sociology subject area, it is England, followed by the United States, followed by France, which
is closer to the first two than in Graph 2. This is consistent with most of the citations for both
Callon and Law coming from England, as opposed to from the United States. In addition, Graph
3 has more articles coming from Australia than from Canada, but the amount is much less
significant than the difference between England and the United States.
The difference between the two graphs begs the question of why it is that Bruno Latour
has such clear dominance in the U.S. Sociology discipline, while Michel Callon and John Law
have more dominance in England. The reasons for this will be explored further in Chapter 4, but
the trend will be apparent in the other subject areas as well.
History and Philosophy of Science The second most common subject area, the History and Philosophy of Science, has a
significantly higher number of citations from the United States, even when Latour is removed
from the analysis. Graph 4 [located in Appendix A], contains citations from Callon, Latour, and
Law and proceeds as follows: USA (841), England (449), Netherlands (162), Canada (152),
Germany (129), Australia (114), France (93), Scotland (75), Denmark (35), and Brazil (33). The
United States is significantly higher than any other country, only distantly followed by England.
77
The rest of the countries are all cited much less often and are similar in citation counts to one
another.
Graph 5 [located in Appendix A] shows the same data, but includes only Callon and Law
and has a similar, if less dramatic, drop proceeding as follows: USA (192), England (101),
Netherlands (59), Canada (45), Australia (34), France (34), Scotland (25), Germany (18), Italy
(8), and Israel (7). The ratio between the United States and England remains quite similar, but
the Netherlands has a higher ratio of citations within this subject area than it does in Graph 4. It
is noteworthy that the United States remains highest in the graphs that contain Latour in the
subject areas that have been traditionally associated with the STS discipline than do either Callon
or Law’s works.
The History and Philosophy of Science, when seen through the lens of an ANT approach,
is much more dominant in the United States than in England. Considering that ANT is said to
have diffused from France and England to the United States, but the subject area with the most
pronounced dominance is in the United States is intriguing. Is it that History and Philosophy of
Science has diffused in a more pronounced manner to the United States or is it that the United
States has been a stronghold of STS for a long time and that it initially gained dominance in the
United States and then in England and other countries?
Geography Within the Geography subject area, there is a marked change in the previous progression
of countries. Graph 6 [located in Appendix A] shows citations from Callon, Latour and Law, and
lists: England (1063), USA (425), Canada (154), Wales (124), Australia (107), Scotland (87),
Germany (75), Netherlands (47), New Zealand (38), and Switzerland (35). This is a dramatic
shift from the previous example, in which the United States was the dominant country.
78
As could be expected, this remains true when examining Graph 7 [located in Appendix
A], showing the citations of Callon and Law, following as such: England (399), USA (109),
Wales (49), Australia (48), Canada (38), Germany (30), Scotland (27), Netherlands (19), New
Zealand (19), and Finland (12). While England has a higher proportion of the citations in Graph
7 than in Graph 6, it is clear that England dominates the field of Geography. As Geography has
only been cited since the mid 1980s to early 1990s, the fact that it is the third most cited subject
area shows how often English authors within the field of Geography cite Callon, Latour, and/or
Law.
In addition, Graph 6 and Graph 7 show that the addition of Bruno Latour’s citations
jumped Canada from fifth on the list to third on the list, bring up the question of why it is that
Bruno Latour seems to have an especially higher rate of citation than either Callon or Law in
North America, when seem in proportion to the rest of the countries and territories.
Management England remains the country with most authors citing one of Callon, Latour, or Law’s
works, which is true both when Latour is and is not included in the analysis. In Graph 8 [located
in Appendix A], which includes Callon, Latour, and Law, the top ten most cited countries are:
England (685), USA (409), Sweden (191), Canada (147), France (134), Netherlands (129),
Denmark (90), Australia (89), Italy (74), and Scotland (72). As with Geography, England cites
the most, with the United States following a little way behind. More interesting, however, is
Sweden’s appearance as third on the list. This is perhaps indicative of an increasing number of
works that fall into the subject area of Management in Sweden, contributing to the field of
organization studies.
79
Graph 9 [located in Appendix A] is similar to Graph 8, but has a higher proportion of
citations from England when compared to the United States, which can be expected, as Bruno
Latour is cited heavily in the United States. In this graph the most cited countries are: England
(323), USA (128), France (71), Netherlands (69), Sweden (65), Canada (54), Denmark (40),
Scotland (36), Australia (35), and Italy (34). England is cited much more often than any other
country, containing more than twice the amount of citations than the United States. Notably
absent from the top three is Sweden, although it remains close in numbers to France and the
Netherlands, indicating that Callon and Law have also been significant contributors to the spread
of ANT within Management Studies and, specifically, to Sweden.
Environmental Studies England is again the most cited in the subject area of Environmental Studies. In Graph 10
[located in Appendix A], which includes Callon, Latour and Law, the order of citation is:
England (539), USA (271), Canada (74), Australia (73), Scotland (59), Wales (55), Sweden (39),
France (38), Norway (38), and Germany (36). Clearly, England is the most dominant in this
subject area, with only the United States having a little more than half of the citations than
England.
Graph 11 [located in Appendix A] includes just Callon and Law and shows England as
much more clearly dominant than any other country. The order is: England (215), USA (67),
Australia (28), Scotland (23), Wales (21), France (20), Canada (19), Norway (15), Germany (13),
and the Netherlands (11). England has more than twice the number of citations than the United
States, which shows that Latour was responsible for a higher proportion of citations from the
United States than either Callon or Law. In addition, Canada is seventh in Graph 11, but is third
80
in Graph 10, showing that Bruno Latour’s dominance extends to all of North America, as
opposed to just the United States.
The high number of citations in England for the subject areas that began at later dates
(Geography, Management, and Environmental Studies) than the original STS specific subject
areas (Sociology, History and Philosophy of Science, and Information Science and Library
Science) is instructive in the interactions between the country, subject area, and date at which
ANT was first used in the discipline. Is Latour helping to diffuse the newer subject areas across
the Atlantic Ocean?
Information Science and Library Science Within the discipline of Information Science and Library Studies, the United States is
again the most prominent. Graph 12 [located in Appendix A] includes Callon, Latour and Law’s
citations and lists the order of countries as such: USA (390), England (261), Netherlands (140),
France (138), Canada (56), Spain (46), Norway (40), Denmark (36), Finland (30), and Australia
(29). While the difference between the citations in the United States and the citations in England
is not as extreme as the cases in which England was the most prominent, there is a significant
difference between the two countries citations. The Netherlands and France are also somewhat
prominent, but have substantially fewer citations than the first two countries.
Excluding Bruno Latour, Graph 13 [located in Appendix A] includes Callon and Law,
and shows a similar, but less pronounced difference between the first four countries. It lists: USA
(132), England (110), Netherlands (84), France (77), Spain (30), Canada (20), Belgium (19),
Australia (16), Germany (14), and Norway (14). In this graph, England, the Netherlands, and
France are all much more prominent than in the graph containing Bruno Latour. While Latour
81
certainly adds more citations than the other two authors, it is weighed less heavily when seen
proportionally to the other countries.
This is consistent with the idea that England has had more diffusion between subject
areas for ANT and that Bruno Latour has helped to bring those subjects to the United States, but
that they are still much more prominent in Europe than in the United States. Information Science
and Library Science has been cited for much longer than any of the subject areas in which
England is dominant, so it is not surprising that it would be most cited in the United States, but
that Callon and Law are cited proportionally more in Europe than Latour.
Conclusions This chapter demonstrates how ANT has diffused from Europe to the United States. All three
authors have been cited much more since the 1990s than they were during the 1970s and 1980s.
However, Bruno Latour has gotten many more citations than either Michel Callon or John Law.
Additionally, his citations have increased at a much faster level than either Callon’s or Law’s
citations have. This is indicative of Latour’s prominence in the field of STS and his
determination to make ANT more applicable to audiences outside of STS, as seen in books of his
such as We Have Never Been Modern, which strays from the STS mold and delves into
philosophical issues.189 More recently, Reassembling the Social was also an attempt to bring an
associational approach to the study of society and the social.190 As Brad Sekedat, a PhD candidate
189 Latour, Bruno. We Have Never Been Modern. Translated by Catherine Porter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993. 190 Latour, Bruno. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory, Clarendon Lectures in Management Studies. New York: Oxford University Press, USA, 2005.
82
in Archeology at Brown University, noted in his interview, “Latour has become the face of
Actor-Network Theory in a lot of ways, at least with what we are doing here.”191
Along with showing how the citations have varied across the years, this chapter also
explores the differences between the three authors according to the countries in which they are
cited most. Bruno Latour is cited most in the United States, while both Michel Callon and John
Law are cited most in England. England and the United States are the two most common
countries in which all authors are cited, but for Michel Callon, France is a close third, which
makes sense since many of his articles have been published in French. All three authors are cited
most in countries that are English speaking or in countries in which most of the population speak
English, such as the Netherlands. The one anomaly is France, which is understandable as many
ANT articles have been published in French and since the theory was first developed in Paris
during the early 1980s.
In addition to analyzing the countries in which the authors were cited most, this chapter
also analyzes the subject areas in which the authors were cited most, and combines the two
frames of reference by analyzing how the countries change by the subject area, as some subject
areas are more dominant in some countries than in others. Both Bruno Latour and Michel Callon
were most often cited in the field of Sociology, while John Law was most cited in Geography,
but was also cited often in Sociology. History and Philosophy of Science was also a subject in
which the three authors were often cited, as was Management and Environmental Studies.
When analyzing the years that certain subject areas first became used for analyzing ANT,
two groups of subject areas emerged from the top six subject areas. The first group is more
traditionally associated with the discipline of STS and includes the subject areas of Sociology,
the History and Philosophy of Science, Information Science and Library Science (for Callon and 191 Sekedat, Bradley. 2011. "ANT Interview." edited by S. Evarts. Providence, RI.
83
Law), and Anthropology (for Bruno Latour)192. These three subject areas began to be use ANT
starting from the late 1970s to the early to middle 1980s and have constituted one of the most
significant contributions to STS in recent history.193 The second group consists of subject areas
more outside of the traditional STS domain, which have only been used since the late 1980s to
mid 1990s and include the subject areas of Management, Geography, and Environmental
Studies. ANT has made significant contributions to these areas, which has been one of the
factors making ANT grow in citations during the 1990s.
The last aspect of ANT’s transnational travels that is analyzed in this chapter is how the
subject areas relate to the countries in which they are cited more and how that varies according to
author. The findings indicate that the United States is dominant in the areas that are more
traditionally associated with STS (those areas that were cited first), while England is more
dominant in the areas to which ANT has been applied (those areas that were cited later).
Moreover, it seems that Bruno Latour’s citations are heavily associated with the diffusion of the
most recent areas to which ANT has been applied than either Callon or Law, who both tend to
remain most cited in Europe than in the United States. This is interesting, as it implies that Bruno
Latour has helped ANT spread to the newer subjects, such as Management, Geography, and
Environmental Studies, in the United States, but that Callon and Law have less of an impact in
the United States.
192 The inclusion of Anthropology to the STS domain is because many of the early studies of STS relied on an ethnographic approach and many prominent studies focused on the cultures of laboratories and how laboratories contribute to the construction and mediation of fact-building. Some prominent examples include: Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar. Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts, Sage Library of Social Research. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1979; Knorr Cetina, Karin. "Laboratory Studies: The Cultural Approach to the Study of Science." In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Petersen and Trevor Pinch. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1995; Latour, Bruno. "Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Raise the World." In Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science, edited by Karin Knorr-Cetina and M. Mulkay, 258-75. London: SAGE Publications, 1983. 193 Sismondo, Sergio. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2010.
84
The transition that ANT has experienced in the past thirty years is informative for its role
in the United States. It appears that ANT is most often used in the United States, but is only just
beginning to be used in subjects outside of the traditional STS domain, whereas it has been used
more robustly for such subjects in England for a longer period of time. If Latour is such an
important factor in the diffusion of ANT, and if England is indicative of future trends in ANT’s
application, it is therefore necessary to explore the ways in which ANT has been used in the
United States with an eye to how it might be used in future studies. There has been informal talk
of the benefits to an ANT approach in various Political Science conferences during 2011,194
which indicate that it is quite possible that the theory will experience a surge in citations in other
fields within the United States in years to come. The following chapter discusses the translation
and diffusion of ANT within the United States from the late 1970s to the present day, with an
emphasis on its applicability to lesser-used subject areas.
194 Ban, Cornel. 2011. "ANT Interview." edited by S. Evarts. Providence, RI.
85
CHAPTER 4: ANTs in the U.S. Academic Melting Pot
Introduction
Actor-Network Theory can be seen as the academic version of an immigrant success story: it was
born in France, made its way across the ocean into various institutions and subject areas only to
come out as one of the most successful theories in the United States—much more successful than
it was in Europe. However, like the more traditional immigrant story, there are assumptions
about the possibility for ANT to assimilate equally throughout all facets of the U.S. academic
scene. The traditional popular myth about human immigrants that the economic and social
conditions in the United States lead to a “melting pot” of different cultures, ethnicities, and
customs when immigrants arrive has been shown many times to be just a myth.195 This principle
holds true in the case of ANT as well as human immigrant groups. What are the institutions,
journals, and subject areas provide a friendly home for the theory to take root? How did ANT
arrive to the United States and how did it take root to become so successful? How can one
retrace its emergence and translation within the country?
This chapter aims to address these questions through a bibliometric analysis of the
citations of the three main authors in ANT: Michel Callon, Bruno Latour, and John Law. More
specifically, this chapter aims to explain ANT’s immigrant perspective by tracking its emergence
in a step-by-step manner. Providing a genealogy of ANT, Chapter 2 traced the theoretical
evolution of ANT and the transformations within ANT, which have been influenced by its 195 Bisin, A., and T. Verdier. "Beyond the Melting Pot: Cultural Transmission, Marriage, and the Evolution of Ethnic and Religious Traits." Quarterly Journal of Economics 115, no. 3 (2000): 955-88.
86
relationship with a variety of disciplines. Chapter 3 addressed how ANT has spread across
countries, time, and subject areas at the international level. This chapter aims to build upon the
foundation set up in Chapters 2 and 3 in order to provide a rich description of ANT’s
immigration to and integration within the United States.
The chapter first proceeds by explaining the methodology used to conduct this analysis.
Then, the temporal emergence of ANT in the United States is explored in detail, followed by a
discussion of how ANT spread (or translated) across various subject areas. The impact that ANT
has had on American academics is then discussed by examining the journals and the institutions
in which the three authors are referenced most. The chapter concludes by breaking down the
institutional analysis according to the subject areas in which the three authors are cited most.
Methodology and Case Selection
The methodology and case selection for Chapter 4 is similar to that of Chapter 3. Bibliometric
information was obtained through the ISI Web of Knowledge’s “Cited Reference Search,” which
was then analyzed online using descriptive statistics, which were compiled—combining authors
and years—in Excel. However, as this chapter is exclusively focused on how ANT has emerged
and become important within the United States, the bibliometric analysis was further refined to
include only works that originated from the United States and also cited at least one of the three
authors. This difference is represented in Table 7 [also located in Appendix A] below:
Table 7: Data Collection for ISI Web of Science Data Collection Michel Callon Bruno Latour John Law Total # Works Citing the Cited Works (WCCWs) – All countries 3,490 14,289 2,518 20,297
# Works Citing the Cited Works (WCCWs) - USA 693 4798 537 6028
87
The temporal and subject area diffusion within the United States has many parallels
methodologically with the temporal and subject area diffusion internationally. Therefore, this
methodology section will only discuss how the impact factor and importance of the institution or
journal was obtained. Ascertaining the importance of the institution from which the citing author
originated presents some problems, as the subject areas in which the articles fall are often not
reflected in categorizations outside of the ISI Web of Knowledge. U.S. News and World Report
was used as an indicator of prestige within the subject area. However, the categories that U.S.
News and World Report provides are much more encompassing than the categories that ISI Web
of Knowledge provide, making it at best just an indicator of relative standing. For example,
while ISI Web of Knowledge has a category for the History and Philosophy of Science, there is
no such category in the U.S. News and World Report, making it easy to just categorize most
subject areas into the discipline of sociology, which does not provide much analytic rigor.
Alternatively, one can also approach the issue of importance and prestige by examining
the journals in which the citing articles are published. If the journal ranks high in the ISI Web of
Knowledge “Journal Citation Reports,” (JCR) then one can safely assume that it had more
impact than a journal that ranks low on the JCR. The indicator used in the present study is the
Eigenfactor Score, which is calculated by taking the number of articles published in a journal
and looking at how many times that article has been published in the JCR in the past five years.
In addition, the Eigenfactor Score takes into account differences between highly cited journals
and less highly cited journals, weighing the highly cited journals more heavily than the less cited
journals. Last, the Eigenfactor Score ignores all citations from one article in a journal to another
article in the same journal, thereby not factoring self-citations into the score.196
196 “ISI Web of Knowledge - Journal Citation Reports.” Thompson-Reuters, 2009.
88
The data presented in the JCR is collected by computers and as such, it can have
inaccuracies and other inconsistencies that can alter a journal’s yearly citation level (such as the
inability to separate the different document types in the journals, which can make the citation
rate artificially higher if many things are published that are not original research, which is not
included in another part of the analysis). However, keeping such factors in mind, the JCR
provides a quantitative way in which to evaluate the relative importance of a journal and the
authors in it.
Temporal Diffusion of ANT within the United States
An examination of how ANT has been used in the United States shows that it has been
increasing in the number of times it has been cited from the early 1980s to today and seems not
to be stopping soon. Graph 14 [located in Appendix A] shows the temporal progression of ANT
when all three authors are combined. It shows that there were relatively few citations in the
United States until 1989, when there started to be more than fifty citations per year of at least one
of the three authors. Throughout the 1990s this trend continued, steadily increasing through the
2000s, until about 2007, in which there was a jump in the number of citations per year. After this
jump in citation count, the number of new citations per year has been increasing steadily again.
When broken down by individual author, the trend remains relatively similar, with only
small changes in the speed at which the citations increased. Graph 15 [located in Appendix A]
depicts Michel Callon’s yearly citation count, showing it to be small enough that it would not
have impacted the overall citation rates greatly. However, it mirrors the trend shown in Graph 14
[located in Appendix A], of beginning to increase more steadily in the 1980s through the 1990s
and 2000s, with a sharp increase in 2007 that appears to be increasing steadily into the present.
89
Bruno Latour’s yearly citation trend data also mirrors the overall citation graph, although
this is no surprise as he is the most significant contributor to the citation count. Graph 16 [located
in Appendix A], shows the increases in his yearly citations in the United States. While he was
cited some during the early 1980s in the United States, it was only by the late 1980s and early
1990s that he became cited more heavily, steadily increasing to about 200 citations per year by
the late 1990s. From 2003 to 2006 there was a plateau in his yearly citations, but jumped ahead
in 2007 to the same place it would have been had it been increasing steadily throughout the
2000s.
Graph 17 [located in Appendix A] shows John Law’s yearly citations in the United
States. Law has more citations starting from the mid 1970s than either Latour or Callon, but the
citations only at rates of once or twice a year. During the second half of the 1980s, his citations
begin increasing slowly throughout the 1990s until they begin to increase much more rapidly
starting around 2002, when he was cited about 20 times a year in the United States, to 2010,
when he was cited around 55 times a year.
The trends shown in these graphs mirror those shown in Graph 1 [located in Appendix
A], which charts the yearly progression of citations for all three authors. Both Graph 1 and Graph
14 show Bruno Latour as having the most citations, with Michel Callon and John Law following
far behind yet maintaining a similar trend line to Latour’s. Indeed the similarities are such that
both graphs show an increase starting in the late 1980s continuing through the mid 2000s, with a
sharp increase starting around 2007. The similarities in both shape and temporal trends between
the two graphs suggest that there was perhaps not a very long lag between ANT’s incorporation
and use in continental Europe and England, and in the United States.
90
Subject Area Diffusion of ANT within the United States The diffusion of ANT across different subject areas between nations was analyzed in Chapter 3,
which showed that in general, the topics more associated with the traditional Science and
Technology Studies domain were cited earlier, followed by the more applied and far-reaching
uses of the theory, such as in Management, Geography, and Environmental Studies. Six subject
areas were analyzed in depth, which suggested that while Callon and Law were more influential
in the applied versions of the theory in England and the rest of Europe, that Latour was
influential in bringing the theories to the United States and in popularizing them abroad.
In Graph 18 [located in Appendix A] the top ten subject areas (by citation) of Callon,
Latour, and Law are listed, showing: History & Philosophy of Science (842), Sociology (841),
Anthropology (494), Geography (425), Management (409), Information Science & Library
Science (390), Education & Education Research (385), Communication (307), Environmental
Studies (271), and Social Issues (242). The History and Philosophy of Science and Sociology are
effectively tied for the most cited subject area in the United States, only followed by
Anthropology with a little more than half of the citations of either of the first two.
When Bruno Latour is left out of the analysis, as he has many more citations than either
Callon or Law and thus can hide the effect that either of the other two authors have on subject
area, the graph reads slightly differently [Graph 19, located in Appendix A]: Sociology (219),
History & Philosophy of Science (192), Information Science & Library Science (132),
Management (128), Geography (109), Computer Science, Information Systems (77),
Environmental Studies (67), Anthropology (66), Social Issues (66), and Business (59). One can
see the influence that the two authors had in the combined version of the graph in the subject
area of Sociology. In addition, Anthropology, while third in Graph 18, is eighth in Graph 19,
91
showing that Callon and Law’s works are either less applicable to the domain of Anthropology,
or that they have less dominance in that area. The third ranking subject area in Graph 19,
Information Science and Library Science, is only sixth in Graph 18, showing that it is relatively
more important for Callon and Law than it is for Latour. The ranking of Management and
Geography are switched, having a greater difference between Management (with more citations)
and Geography (with fewer) in Graph 19 than in Graph 18. Environmental Studies is also lower
when Latour is included than when only Callon and Law are included; however, this just shows
the relative difference in importance within the authors, as Latour still has many more citations
in Environmental Studies than either Callon or Law.
There are four categories (two in each graph) that do not match up when the top ten
subject areas are listed: Education and Education Research; Communication; Computer Science,
Information Systems; and Business. This shows that, for instance in Graph 18, Education and
Education Research and Communication are much more important categories for Latour than
they are for either Callon or Law. Similarly, it shows that Computer Science, Information
Systems and Business are relatively less important categories for Latour than they are for Callon
and Law.
The subject areas shown are not entirely surprising, as both the History and Philosophy of
Science and Sociology have been the two main subject areas in other countries as well. However,
when compared to the dates at which those subject areas appeared in other countries to when
they appeared in the United States, they become more interesting.
Chart 4 [located in Appendix A] shows the top five subject areas by the start year (the
year in which there were more than two citations for a given subject area) for Michel Callon.
History and Philosophy of Science is first, first seen in the United States in 1982. Sociology and
92
Information Science and Library Science are first seen in 1988, Management in 1992, and
Geography in 1999. For Michel Callon, when one compares Chart 4 to Chart 2 [both located in
Appendix A], one sees that there is no delay from when Callon is cited in the History and
Philosophy of Science for all countries and when he is cited in the United States. However, there
is a longer delay in Sociology, which shows that eight years passed between the time he was first
cited in the subject area to when he was cited in it in the United States. A seven-year delay also
occurs between the two dates for the subject area Information Science and Library Science, from
1983 in all countries to 1988 in the United States. In the subject area of Management there is a
four-year delay from when he was cited in all countries to when he was cited in the United States
(from 1988 to 1992) and in Geography a five-year delay (from 1995 to 1999).
Bruno Latour’s top five subject areas by citation count are in Chart 5 [located in
Appendix A], which shows that History and Philosophy of Science, like Callon, is first to arrive
in 1981, followed by Sociology and Anthropology in 1982. Geography arrives in 1991 and
Management coming soon after in 1992. When compared to Chart 1 [located in Appendix A],
which shows Latour’s starting years for his top six subject areas in all countries, there does not
appear to be a significant delay from when he was cited in all countries to when he was cited in
the United States. For example, Latour was first cited in the History and Philosophy of Science
and in Sociology in 1980 for all countries and in 1981 and 1982, respectively, for just the United
States. While there is a small lag in time, it is generally insignificant. Indeed, for Anthropology,
there appears to be no delay from the first time it was cited more than twice to the first time it
was cited in the United States, happening in 1982 for both groups. There is a longer delay,
however, in Management. Latour was first cited in the Management field in 1984, but was not
cited in the United States until 1992—a delay of eight years, which is large considering the lack
93
of delay in other subject areas. That Management has an eight-year delay, but Geography only a
one-year delay is puzzling, as the two groups have seemed to move together.
John Law seems to be the fastest diffusion process to the United States of all three
authors. As Chart 6 [located in Appendix A] shows, he is not cited more than once a year until
1985, in which he is cited in the History and Philosophy of Science subject area. In 1987 he is
cited in Sociology, 1992 in Geography, 1993 in Information Science and Library Science, and in
1995 is cited in Management. Law sees the biggest delays between his starting years in all
countries versus his starting years in the United States, when comparing Chart 3 with Chart 6
[both located in Appendix A]. This may be due to more single citations per year than the other
authors, giving Law an artificially high year start date. However, this is also indicative of a lack
of influence in the fields in which he only has one citation a year, and as such, will be counted
like the other authors. He is first cited in History and Philosophy of Science in all countries in
1974, the earliest of all three authors; however, it takes 11 years for Law to be cited more than
once a year in the United States for the subject area. Sociology is even more pronounced, with a
12-year delay between all countries and the United States, 1975 and 1987, respectively. The
most pronounced delay, however, occurs in Information Science and Library Science, which was
first seen in all countries in 1978, but only came to the United States in 1993—a delay of 15
years. There is a five-year delay between the two dates for Geography, as it was first cited in
1994 for all countries and in 1999 for the United States. Management has a slightly shorter delay
of three years, first emerging in 1992 for all countries and in 1995 for the United States.
The similarities between the three graphs show the continuities between the international
diffusion of ANT and the diffusion of ANT within the United States. History and Philosophy of
94
Science197 is the first subject area in which authors cited one of Callon, Latour, or Law’s works.
Second is Sociology, which is a broad category according to the ISI Web of Knowledge subject
classifications,198 encompassing the many sub-disciplines under the broader category of
Sociology. Tied with Sociology is Anthropology,199 which is similarly broad, as it would require
a content analysis of the citing articles in order to determine whether the works are being used in
ethnographic laboratory studies or in anthropological studies that are not closely affiliated with
Science and Technology Studies.
The clearest distinction between the subject areas that all three graphs have in common is
the later emergence of Management and Geography within the United States. There is some
variation in the order and dates of the subject areas emergence, but relative to the dates for the
other subject areas, both Management and Geography arrive later. Consistent with the
examination of subject areas across countries in Chapter 3, Bruno Latour is the first to be cited in
the United States for both Management and Geography, in 1992 and 1991, respectively.
Impact of ANT within the United States
Journals by Subject Area The top six subject areas for the combination of all three authors will be analyzed in this
section. The list of the ten top journals in the subject areas was obtained through ISI Web of
Knowledge “Journal Citation Report” (JCR) application. The journals are ranked based on the 197 The Scope Notes for the 2010 Social Science Citation Index provide this explanation for the categorization: “History & Philosophy of Science covers resources on the history of scientific disciplines including medicine and technology, as well as resources on the philosophical and social studies of science.” 198 According to the Scope Notes for the 2010 Social Science Citation Index, “Sociology covers resources that focus on the study of human society, social structures, and social change as well as human behavior as it is shaped by social forces. Areas covered in this category include community studies, socio-ethnic problems, rural sociology, sociobiology, social deviance, gender studies, the sociology of law, the sociology of religion, and comparative sociology.” 199 The Scope Notes for the 2010 Social Science Citation Index defines it as such: “Anthropology covers resources relating to the scientific study of human beings, especially their origin, distribution, behavior, as well as their physical, social and cultural characteristics and development. This category, by definition, borrows from related resources in history, archaeology, and several other social sciences.”
95
2010 Social Science Citation Index subject area categories, which then rank the journals
associated with certain categories according to a variety of indicators. The indicator used for this
ranking was the Eigenfactor Score, which is explained in the methodology section of this
chapter. The factors involved in making the Eigenfactor Score are the number of article in a
journal, the average number of citations per article over the course of five years, and the journal
itself (as it weighs more highly cited journals more than less highly cited journals). It does not
include self-citations, which makes it a better indicator than the more traditional Impact Factor
score.
History and Philosophy of Science Graph 20 [located in Appendix A] shows the top ten journals in the History and
Philosophy of Science by the number of articles citing the authors in that journal. For the History
and Philosophy of Science, the top ten journals listed are: American Journal of Bioethics, Social
Studies of Science, Public Understanding of Science, Synthese, Philosophy of Science, Biology &
Philosophy, Isis, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Agriculture and Human Values,
and Historia Mathematica. These ten journals dominate the History and Philosophy of Science
discipline, making them useful indicators of how important the articles citing either Callon,
Latour, or Law are. As the citations are broken down by specific author, one can compare across
authors to see which ones have the most citations in the most important categories.
Bruno Latour, not surprisingly, has the most citations in the top ten journals—a total of
366 works citing him in one of the top ten journals. John Law is second, with a total of 75 works
citing him, followed by Michel Callon, with a total of 61 works citing him. This finding of
relative importance correlates with the number of articles published in the History and
Philosophy of Science subject area. Latour has the most with 650 articles, Law the second with
96
103, and Callon the least with only 89 articles published in the United States within the History
and Philosophy of Science. Latour has the lowest percentage of total articles citing him in the top
ten list of journals (at 56.30%), followed by Callon (at 68.54%), followed by Law (at 72.82%)
[Table 8, located in Appendix A, lists the percentages for each author according to subject area].
While Latour may have the most, Law seems to have more quality articles citing him, with
Callon falling somewhere in the middle. The most common journal with articles citing one of the
three authors is Social Studies of Science, followed by Isis, followed further behind by
Philosophy of Science. Social Studies of Science has almost all of the articles, however, making it
very important in the process of ANT’s diffusion.
Sociology Graph 21 [located in Appendix A], presents a more balanced picture of how citing
articles are distributed among the highest rated journals in Sociology, which are: American
Sociological Review, American Journal of Sociology, Journal of Marriage and the Family,
Social Forces, Annual Review of Sociology, Social Science Research, Sociology—The Journal of
the British Sociological Association, Population and Development Review, Social Problems, and
Sociology of Health & Illness. Again, Bruno Latour is the most highly cited, with a total of 186
citations in the top ten, followed by Callon with 37 citations, and Law with 24 citations. This
correlates, as with the History and Philosophy of Science, with the number of total citations
within the discipline for each author: Latour has 621 citations, Callon 133, and Law 86 citations.
The percentage of articles from the larger subject area pool that get into one of the top ten
journals is much less for Bruno Latour, even though he has almost as many total citations in
Sociology as within the History and Philosophy of Science, at 29.95%. Even though there are
fewer articles in the top journals in Sociology than there were in the History and Philosophy of
97
Science, it is consistently lower across the three authors, with Callon having 27.82% and Law
27.91%. The percentage of articles from the total making it into one of the top ten journals is
much lower and much more consistent in Sociology than in the History and Philosophy of
Science. This is most likely due to a combination of factors, such as the wide range of subjects
that Sociology treats, the small subject are of the History and Philosophy of Science, and more
direct applicability of ANT to the History and Philosophy of Science as opposed to other subject
areas. The authors citing Callon, Latour, or Law are not deviating from the norm in a journal
specifically focused on STS, while an author citing one of the three authors would be ascribing
to a heterodox methodology, which is not often associated with the top journals in a mainstream
subject area.
Anthropology ANT’s impact within anthropology in the United States is seen through its high
prevalence in four of the top ten journals; however, its relative absence in the other journals is
equally significant. The top ten journal for anthropology (shown in Graph 22 and listed in Table
11 [both located in Appendix A]) are: Journal of Human Evolution, American Journal of
Physical Anthropology, Journal of Archeological Science, Current Anthropology, American
Journal of Human Biology, Annual Review of Anthropology, American Anthropologist,
American Ethnologist, Social Networks, and Evolutionary Anthropology. Bruno Latour is the
most highly cited in all four citing journals, which could be expected, as Anthropology ranks
third when all three authors are combined, but ranks eighth when only Callon and Law are
included in the analysis. Latour has a total of 189 citations in the top ten U.S. Anthropology
journals, while Callon and Law only have 14 and 5 citations, respectively.
98
There has also been additional skewing when comparing the data on journal citations to
the data on overall citation rates in the subject area. For example, the significantly higher number
of citations that Latour has in he journal metric is partly due to the fact that he is cited in those
journals at a higher percentage of his total citations than are either Callon or Law. Latour has
44.16 percent of his total citations in the top ten journals, while Callon only has 31.11 percent
and Law only has 23.81 percent. It appears that Latour is more likely than either Callon or Law
to be cited in Anthropology, and when he is cited, he is more likely to be cited in one of the top
ten journals in the subject. The reasons for this obviously remain unclear, as Latour’s dominance
could be the result of networks of people referring each other to his work, or that he had engaged
in more ethnographic research than either Law or Callon.
Geography Within Geography, the three authors are cited significantly in six of the top ten journals,
which is most likely indicative of their applicability in Geography and their more widespread
acceptance. The top ten journals in the United States in Geography (shown in Graph 23 and
listed in Table 12 [both located in Appendix A]) are: Environment and Planning A; Global
Environmental Change - Human and Policy Dimensions; Progress in Human Geography;
Landscape and Urban Planning; Geoforum; Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers; Annals of the Association of American Geographers; Regional Studies; Journal of
Economic Geography; and Environment and Planning D-Society & Space. Bruno Latour is the
most cited at 209, with Law coming second at 45, and Callon coming third at 31. There was only
one journal, Landscape and Urban Planning, in which none of the authors has ever been cited.
In contrast to Anthropology, in Geography all three authors have a similar percentage of
their total citations in the top ten journals in the subject area. Callon has 67.39 percent, Latour
99
66.14 percent, and Law 71.43 percent. The cause for the high rate of citations in the journals
could be, in part, attributed to the small size of the discipline; the subject area of Anthropology
has many more journals in it than does Geography.
Management The three authors are only cited robustly in three of the management journals, with three
other journals citing them from 5-12 times. Within Management, the top ten journals in the
United States (shown in Graph 24 and listed in Table 13 [both located in Appendix A]) are:
Management Science; Academy of Management Journal; Academy of Management Review;
Strategic Management Journal; Corporate Governance-An International Review; Organization
Science; Operations Research; Harvard Business Review; Research Policy; and the Journal of
Management. There were only 130 total citations in Management, with Latour having the most at
85, Callon having 31, and Law having 14. The journals Organization Science and Research
Policy had the most citations of the top ten, with 43 and 42 citations, respectively.
Much like Anthropology, the field of Management is also broad and the authors are
unlikely to have a high percentage of articles in the top ten journals in the subject area. Callon
has 38.75 percent, Latour 30.25 percent, and Law 29.17 percent. Presumably, because only a
portion of the work in Management Studies is pertinent to ANT (as many articles might be
concerned with a more pragmatic and goal oriented article), it is perhaps not that surprising that
there is a low percentage of citing articles in the top ten journals.
Information Science and Library Science It seems that ANT is more cited in the top ten journals in Information Science and
Library Science more consistently (across a wider range of journals) than in the other subject
areas. In the United States, the top ten journals for Information Science and Library Science
100
(shown in Graph 25 and listed in Table 14 [both located in Appendix A]) are: the Journal of the
American Medical Informatics Association; Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology; Mis Quarterly; Scientometrics; Information & Management;
Information Processing & Management; Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication;
Journal of Management Information Systems; Journal of Health Communication; and
Information Systems Research. There is only one journal that cites none of the three authors in
this subject: the Journal of Health Communication. In Information Science and Library Science,
Latour (while still having the most citations) does not dominate in the same manner as previous
subject areas. Latour has a total of 60 citations, Callon a total of 32, and Law a total of 11.
Callon has the highest percentage rate of citation in the top ten journals, at 36.78 percent,
with Latour at 23.26 percent, and Law at 24.44 percent. Both Law and Latour are consistent with
one another, but Callon’s high rate deserves some explanation. Callon’s higher rate of citations
might be due to his innovations in the field of Information Science and Library Science, as he
was one of the proponents of co-word analysis, a way of conducting bibliometric analysis that
instead of using citation counts, uses words within the article as indicators of their connections.200
Institutions by Subject Area As noted in the methodology section, it can be difficult to ascertain the relative
importance of institutions based on the narrower subject categorizations of the Social Science
Citation Index. However, with some adjustments, some broad comparisons can be made between
the institutions and their rates of citation of the authors’ works. U.S. News and World Report was
used to get the ranks of various institutions, which required me to categorize the subject areas
200 Callon, Michel, Jean-Pierre Courtial, and F. Laville. 1991. "Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemistry." Scientometrics 22:155-205.
101
from the Social Science Citation Index in order to fit those provided by U.S. News and World
Report. The History and Philosophy of Science was categorized into Social Sciences –
Sociology, as was Anthropology and Geography because U.S. News and World Report did not
have a separate category for each subject area. Management was categorized under Business –
Management. Information Science and Library Science was categorized under Library – Library
and Information Studies. The top six categories for Callon, Latour, and Law and the top five
categories for Callon and Law were analyzed according to subject area.
History and Philosophy of Science The History and Philosophy of Science could fall under a combined ranking analysis of Philosophy and Sociology, but as only Sociology was provided as a category, the rankings in this area may not be entirely accurate. While the rankings of institutions may only be possible using the broadest of strokes, the results from this combination of sources is interesting and highlights some possible reasons (e.g. the prestige and expertise of a specific program) why certain institutions cite the three authors much more than others in specific subject areas.
Table 15 [located in Appendix A] shows the top ten institutions for the three authors in
the History and Philosophy of Science subject area, which reads: Cornell University (75),
University of CA – San Diego (49), Harvard University (37), University of Wisconsin (31),
Indiana University (26), University of Pennsylvania (19), University of Missouri (18), Virginia
Polytech Institute & State University (17), Georgia Institute of Technology (16), and Stanford
University (15). Cornell University is ranked seventeenth in Sociology, Harvard University
ranked third, the University of Wisconsin ranked second, both Indiana University and the
University of Pennsylvania are ranked eleventh, and Stanford University is ranked fifth. Graph
26 [located in Appendix A] shows the distribution of the citations by institution.
Table 16 [located in Appendix A] shows the institutions listed according to subject area
and citation count, but excludes Bruno Latour, which alters the data somewhat. The table lists the
top ten institutions as: Cornell University (15), University of CA – San Diego (15), University of
102
Wisconsin (13), Harvard University (9), Indiana University (7), University of CA – Berkeley (6),
University of Missouri (6), Brandeis University (5), Colorado State University (5), and the
University of Virginia (5). Cornell University is ranked seventeenth, the University of Wisconsin
is ranked second, Harvard University ranked fifth, Indiana University ranked eleventh, and the
University of CA – Berkeley is ranked first in the field of Sociology. Graph 27 [located in
Appendix A] shows the distribution of the citations by institution.
When Bruno Latour is included in the analysis, there are slightly more institutions in the
ten most citing institutions that ranked in the top 25 of the U.S. News and World Report rating
system. More significant, however, is the concentration of citations from certain institutions,
such as Cornell University. The difference between Latour and Callon or Law seems to be that
Latour has a stronger institutional base than either of the two. The fact that Cornell University
was home to 60 out of Latour’s 650 citations—or 9.23%—within the History and Philosophy of
Science realm in the United States is significant. Callon and Law, on the other hand, show
comparatively less institutional grounding than Latour, quickly dropping from the high of fifteen
citations to that of six in five institutions.
Significantly, although perhaps not surprising, is the fact that all of the top ten institutions
that cite one of the three authors most have established programs on the study of science and
technology. Cornell University’s Department of Science and Technology Studies, according to
their website, was one of the first programs in the world (started in the 1970s) to have an entire
department dedicated to studies on science and technology.201 The University of California – San
Diego’s Science Studies Program has existed since 1989, and has affiliations with the
communication, history, philosophy, and sociology departments.202 Harvard University’s
201 Accessible at http://www.sts.cornell.edu/ 202 Accessible at http://sciencestudies.ucsd.edu/index.html
103
Kennedy School of Government has a Program on Science, Technology and Society, while the
undergraduate college has a History of Science department that both foster cross-disciplinary
exploration of science and technology’s impact on society and vice versa.203 In 2001, the
University of Wisconsin – Madison launched the Robert F. & Jean E. Holtz Center on Science
and Technology Studies, which formalizes the school’s focus on the study of science and
technology studies.204 Started in 1960, the Department of History and Philosophy of Science at
Indiana University offers both undergraduate and graduate majors.205 The University of
Pennsylvania’s History and Sociology of Science department has an STS track that students can
take.206 While Brandeis University, does not have a formal department in science studies as a
whole, they have a department on Health: Science, Society and Policy in which undergraduate
students can both major and minor.207 Similarly, the University of Missouri, while not having a
specific STS department, has a range of interdisciplinary majors that addresses science and
technology. The list goes on: Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Stanford University, the Colorado
State University, and the University of Virginia all offer concentrations in some manifestation of
science and technology studies.208 As the rest of the subject areas are actually present at each
school listed, I will not list the names of each school. Table 17 [located in Appendix A] lists the
top ten schools in each category, indicating those that have a science and technology department.
Sociology Perhaps the only category for which there was a perfect match between the Social
Science Citation Index categorization and the U.S. News and World Report categorization, 203 Accessible at http://www.hks.harvard.edu/sts/ 204 Accessible at http://www.sts.wisc.edu/index.html 205 Accessible at http://www.indiana.edu/~hpscdept/index.shtml 206 Accessible at http://hss.sas.upenn.edu/stsc/STS 207 Accessible at http://www.brandeis.edu/programs/hssp/ 208 Available at the following websites, respectively: http://www.sts.vt.edu/index.php, http://www.hts.gatech.edu/, http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Philosophy/, and http://www.sts.virginia.edu/
104
Sociology shows a similar picture as that of the History and Philosophy of Science. In Table 18
[located in Appendix A], the institutions citing the three authors the most were: the University of
CA – San Diego (38), Columbia University (34), Cornell University (31), University of
Wisconsin (31), Northwestern University (26), University of Illinois (26), Michigan State
University (25), Princeton University (22), Rutgers State University (22), and Stanford
University (21). Graph 28 [located in Appendix A] shows the distribution of the citations by
institution. Columbia University is ranked eleventh, Cornell ranked seventeenth, the University
of Wisconsin ranked second, Northwestern University ranked ninth, Princeton University ranked
third, and Stanford University ranked fifth.
When Latour is excluded from the analysis, there are fewer highly ranked institutions in
the top ten highest citing institutions. The results are shown in Table 19 [located in Appendix A],
which lists the institutions as: University of CA – San Diego (15), Columbia University (12),
Michigan State University (11), University of Illinois (10), Cornell University (9), Stanford
University (9), University of CA – Berkeley (8), Colorado State University (7), Rutgers State
University (6), and the University of CA – Santa Cruz (6). Graph 29 [located in Appendix A]
shows the distribution of the citations by institution. Columbia University is ranked eleventh,
Cornell ranked seventeenth, Stanford ranked fifth, and the University of CA – Berkeley ranked
first.
In Sociology, Latour does not have the same level of institutional depth in one university
that he enjoys in the History and Philosophy of Science with Cornell University. Both groups,
however, show that the University of CA – San Diego is the highest citer of all three authors
works in Sociology. While not ranked in the top 25 (rated at 31st), the University of CA – San
105
Diego specializes in the sociology of culture, which could explain why they have cited the
authors more than other universities without having an especially prestigious program.
Anthropology Anthropology is perhaps the worst suited for any of the U.S. News and World Report categories, as it is distinctly different from Sociology and requires a very different sort of program, but as Sociology is the closest (albeit remaining far), it is used as a proxy for the prestige of an Anthropology program.
Table 20 [located in Appendix A], lists the top institutions for the three authors:
University of Chicago (36), University of North Carolina (28), University of CA – Berkeley
(25), MIT (20), University of CA – Santa Cruz (20), Cornell University (19), University of
Michigan (19), Stanford University (16), University of CA – San Diego (16), and NYU (14).
Graph 30 [located in Appendix A] shows the distribution of the citations by institution. The
University of Chicago and the University of North Carolina both rank fifth, the University of CA
– Berkeley ranks first, Cornell University ranks seventeenth, the University of Michigan ranks
third, Stanford University ranks fifth, and NYU ranks fourteenth.
Table 21 [located in Appendix A], lists the top institutions for Callon and Law, excluding
Latour from the analysis: University of Virginia (5), Cornell University (4), Rice University (4),
University of CA – Santa Cruz (4), NYU (3), Stanford University (3), University of Arizona (3),
University of CA – Berkeley (3), University of CA – Irvine (3), and the University of Minnesota
(3). Graph 31 [located in Appendix A] shows the distribution of the citations by institution.
Cornell University ranks seventeenth, NYU ranks fourteenth, Stanford University ranks fifth, the
University of Arizona ranks twentieth, the University of CA – Berkeley ranks first, and the
University of Minnesota ranks twentieth.
106
In Anthropology, Latour has a significantly stronger institutional base than either Callon
or Law, which is understandable as Anthropology ranks eighth in subject area for the combined
analysis of Callon and Law’s top subject areas in the United States. The low quantity and equal
distribution of institutions within the Anthropology subject area for Callon and Law indicate a
lack of any institutional stronghold for the subject within the United States. Latour, on the other
hand, seems to have a relatively stronger grounding in institutions, which can be seen by the
higher numbers at the University of Chicago, the University of North Carolina, and the
University of CA – Berkeley. This makes sense considering that Latour has been used in
Anthropology for a relatively long time in the United States (since 1982) and by relatively many
articles (cited by 425 works from 1973-2010).
Geography In Table 22 [located in Appendix A], the top institutions for Callon, Latour, and Law are
listed as: University of Minnesota (30), University of Wisconsin (30), University of Washington
(29), Ohio State University (28), University of Colorado (19), Syracuse University (17),
University of CA – Los Angeles (16), University of Kentucky (15), University of Arizona (14),
and the University of North Carolina (14). Graph 32 [located in Appendix A] shows the
distribution of the citations by institution. The University of Minnesota ranks twentieth, the
University of Wisconsin ranks second, both the University of Washington and Ohio State
University rank seventeenth, the University of CA – Los Angeles ranks ninth, the University of
Arizona ranks twentieth, and the University of North Carolina ranks fifth.
In
Table 23 [located in Appendix A], Latour is excluded from the analysis, listing the
institutions as: University of Washington (11), University of Minnesota (7), University of
107
Wisconsin (7), University of Colorado (6), University of Massachusetts (5), Clark University (4),
Dartmouth College (4), Florida State University (4), Ohio State University (4), and the
University of Kentucky (4). Graph 33 [located in Appendix A] shows the distribution of the
citations by institution. The University of Washington ranks seventeenth, the University of
Minnesota ranks twentieth, the University of Wisconsin ranks second, and Ohio State University
ranks seventeenth.
Latour seems to have four strongholds in U.S. institutions for Geography—the University
of Minnesota, the University of Wisconsin, the University of Washington, and Ohio State
University—while Callon and Law have only one—the University of Washington. Additionally,
all four of Latour’s strongholds are ranked in the top twenty-five Sociology schools in the U.S.
News and World Report rankings. As Geography is not entirely synonymous to Sociology, it
bears noting some of the school’s rankings in specialties that could conceivably be related to
Geography. The University of Wisconsin is ranked first in the Sociology of Population, which is
often concerned with matters pertaining to the political geography of population growth and its
effect on the natural surroundings. The University of Washington ranks eighth in the Sociology
of Population, with Ohio State University ranking sixteenth in the same specialty. While it is
impossible without conducting a content analysis of the articles to ascertain whether or not the
articles citing either Callon, Latour, or Law could fall under the Sociology of Population
umbrella, the fact that three of the four institutions citing the three authors have high ranking
specialties in the sub-subject area raises interesting questions.
While most of the previous subjects areas were cited in colleges or universities that
already had a program or department related to science and technology studies, in Geography
this was not the case. Ohio State University, Syracuse University, the University of Arizona, the
108
University of Colorado, and the University of Kentucky all did not have any program or
department related to STS. Thus, out of the 41 different institutions of the top ten most cited in
the top six subject categories, five of the fifteen that did not have departments related to STS
were in Geography. It is impossible to know conclusively what this finding indicates; however, it
could be due to a combination of the more established role that ANT has in Geography, coupled
with the relatively small size of the disciplines.
Management All three authors are shown in
Table 24 [located in Appendix A], which list the top institutions as: MIT (46),
Pennsylvania State University (21), University of Cincinnati (18), Stanford University (16),
NYU (15), University of CA – Davis (14), Case Western Reserve University (12), University of
CA – Irvine (12), University of Illinois (12), and the University of Washington (11). Graph 34
[located in Appendix A] shows the distribution of the citations by institution. MIT ranks third,
Stanford University ranks first, and NYU ranks tenth.
Excluding Latour,
Table 25 [located in Appendix A], lists the institutions that cite Callon and Law most as:
MIT (14), NYU (7), Pennsylvania State University (7), Stanford University (7), University of
Massachusetts (5), Georgia Institute of Technology (4), SUNY Albany (4), University of
Southern California (4), University of Washington (4), and the New York Institute of
Technology (3). Graph 35 [located in Appendix A] shows the distribution of the citations by
109
institution. MIT ranks first, NYU tenth, Stanford University first, and the University of Southern
California ranks twenty-first.
Because ISI Web of Knowledge categorizes the authors in terms of where they originate,
it is impossible to factor out foreign authors working with U.S. authors from the analysis. Indeed,
it can be illuminating if it shows that there is more international collaboration in some subject
areas than in others. Management is one subject area in which there is more international
collaboration between authors than in other subject areas. For example, foreign authors helped to
write around 30% (123 out of 404 total authors) of all articles within the Management subject
area. The most common countries to collaborate in writing Management articles were from
Canada and England with 34 and 18 collaborations, respectively. When compared to a subject
area such as Sociology in which foreign authors only constitute about 10% of the authors (73 out
of 695 possible authors) the extent of this collaboration is significant. Indicative of this is the
initial inclusion of foreign universities—the University of Montreal and the Copenhagen School
of Economics and Business Administration—in the top ten list of citing institutions for the
authors. The institution that appears to have the biggest grounding for all three authors is the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which is ranked third in Business – Management.
Information Science and Library Science Callon, Latour, and Law are shown in
Table 26 [located in Appendix A], which shows the top institutions for Information
Science and Library Science, listing them as: Indiana University (38), University of Illinois (35),
Case Western Reserve University (18), Drexel University (18), University of CA – Los Angeles
(17), Georgia State University (16), University of Michigan (16), University of Maryland (14),
Georgia Institute of Technology (13), and the University of Washington (12). Graph 36 [located
110
in Appendix A] shows the distribution of the citations by institution. Indiana University ranks
seventh, the University of Illinois ranks first, Drexel University ranks ninth, the University of
CA – Los Angeles ranks fourteenth, the University of Michigan ranks fifth, the University of
Maryland ranks tenth, and the University of Washington ranks fourth.
Perhaps more appropriate for just an analysis of Callon and Law, as Information Science
and Library Science only ranks sixth in the overall subject area list, Table 27 [located in
Appendix A] shows the top institutions for the two authors to be: Drexel University (11), Indiana
University (11), University of Illinois (9), University of Maryland (8), University of CA – Los
Angeles (7), Georgia Institute of Technology (6), Georgia State University (6), University of CA
– Berkeley (6), Institute of Science Information (5), and MIT (5). Graph 37 [located in Appendix
A] shows the distribution of the citations by institution. Drexel University ranks ninth, Indiana
University ranks seventh, the University of Illinois ranks first, the University of Maryland ranks
tenth, and the University of CA – Los Angeles ranks fourteenth.
Both Indiana University and the University of Illinois are important institutional bases for
Information Science and Library Science in the United States for all three authors. Perhaps
because of the subject area is smaller than for example, Sociology, there are many of the top 25
ranked schools in the top ten institutions that cite either Callon, Latour, or Law in Information
Science and Library Science. Indiana University and the University of Illinois are more
prominent when Latour is included in the analysis than when it is just Callon and Law, showing
that they are the most consistent institutions citing Latour.
Conclusions
This chapter examined the movement of ANT within the United States. It revealed that
while ANT had a similar increase in citations from year to year as it did when compared to all
111
countries, there were some important differences. First, ANT became established in the United
States a few years later than it did elsewhere, although not by a significant amount. Second, there
were differences between the three authors in terms of how quickly they were cited in the United
States and in which year they began to be cited consistently. Michel Callon started to be cited
relatively consistently around 1988/1989, progressing steadily throughout the 1990s and
increasing at a faster rate from 2003 to about 2006, at which point his rate of citation increased at
an even sharper rate, continuing onto today. Bruno Latour began to be cited more consistently
around 1987 and progressed steadily throughout the 1990s and 2000s into the present day. While
there was some year-to-year variation in Latour’s citation rates, the overall trend was quite
consistent. John Law had more early citations (although very few) than the other two authors;
however, he increased at the slowest rate of the three authors, but began to increase at a faster
rate after 2001.
There was a difference in the top six subject areas in which the three authors were most
between all countries combined and the United States. First, while Environmental Studies was
listed as one of the top six subject areas in the combined analysis, it was not in the top six areas
when just the United States was analyzed. Rather, Anthropology (while not in the top six in all
countries) ranked third in the United States. Second, in subject areas such as Geography and
Management ANT is cited more in England than in the United States. Without a deeper analysis
of how the citations are used, however, it is impossible to say why this might be so. Within the
United States, all three authors are being cited at greater amounts in these two disciplines than
previously, indicating that perhaps they will be cited more heavily in the future.
The dates at which the top subject areas became cited more consistently, loosely varied
by author, but retained a general shape, which was relatively consistent with the findings in
112
Chapter 3. The findings showed that the more traditional STS subjects, such as Sociology and
the History and Philosophy of Science, were cited prior to the subject areas that were less
traditionally associated with STS, such as Geography and Management. There was a time lag
between when the subject area was first cited in all countries and when it was first cited in the
United States, which varied by both author and subject area. However, in the subject area of
Geography (a more applied use of ANT), there was a lag between when Latour was first cited in
works on Geography and when either Callon or Law was cited—in 1992 and 1999, respectively.
There was no time lag in Management Studies for Callon, and only a lag of three years for Law.
The examination of the connection between journal prestige and subject area citations
showed that citations of the three authors tended to be concentrated in a few of the top ten
journals—there tended to be about two to four main journals that cited the authors most, with the
History and Philosophy of Science (there was only one) and Geography (there were six) as the
outliers.
The relatively high number of citations in the top journals of each discipline perhaps
indicates that ANT, even though it is controversial and considered a somewhat radical
methodology, has found its place in academic discourse. As Brad Sekedat, an Archeology PhD
candidate at Brown University notes:
The people I know who really incorporate Actor-Network Theory publish a lot and it is always cutting edge stuff that even if people disagree with, they read it and they react to it. So I’m not afraid of not getting hired because I cited Latour or Law or someone.209 The analysis of the institutional rankings and subject area was hindered by a mismatch in
subject area categorization between ISI’s JCR and the U.S. News and World Report rankings of
universities in various subject areas. Thus, the ranking of the university was less important than
209 Sekedat, Bradley. 2011. "ANT Interview." edited by S. Evarts. Providence, RI.
113
the concentration of citations in some universities as opposed to others, indicating that certain
universities provided an “in” for the theory to become cited more and more often. In areas in
which certain authors were more cited, they tended to have a greater institutional grounding than
in other areas. In addition, as Table 17 [located in Appendix A] shows, most institutions in the
top ten had departments or programs related to STS.
Overall, this chapter provides a deeper look into how ANT has woven its way through
various subject areas, journals, and institutions over time. The three authors provided a base on
which to compare one to another, making it possible to see certain trends over time in a way that
would not be possible with just one author. Combined with Chapter 3’s analysis of ANT’s
progression at the international level, this single country analysis of ANT’s spread adds nuance
and possible explanations for phenomena seen at the macro level. While there are certainly gaps
in what a bibliometric analysis can provide—e.g. causal explanations for why certain patterns
emerge—it can suggest many possibilities and open the door for further research into the subject.
114
CHAPTER 5: Conclusion
P[rofessor]:…To be relevant requires another set of extraordinary circumstances. It’s a rare event. It requires an incredibly imaginative protocol. It requires something as miraculous as Galileo with his pendulum or Pasteur with his rabies virus. S[tudent]: So what should I do? Pray for a miracle? Sacrifice a chicken? P[rofessor]: But why do you want your tiny little text to be automatically relevant to those who might be concerned by it (or not) than say a huge laboratory of natural sciences? Look at how much it takes for Intel™ chips to become relevant for mobile phones! And you want everyone to have a label ‘LSE™ inside’ at no cost at all? To become relevant you need extra work.210
Like all innovations, ANT began life stillborn; however, unlike all innovations, ANT has become
real and quite relevant to a variety of genres and disciplines. Like a virus, it has divided,
transformed, evolved, and spread to more and more disciplines at a faster and faster rate. This
thesis aimed to provide an epidemiological report on its progression, attempting to track ANT’s
spread by following some of the actors that made it possible: the authors that have cited their
works. Continuing with a viral metaphor, this analysis, like an epidemiological report, is best
used when no immodest causal inferences are drawn from the data, as descriptive statistics can
only be employed to suggest a possible reason, but not to state causality.
The ANT virus is provocative, tempting interaction and curiosity from potential hosts. It
is also successful in producing strong reactions, both good and bad (Bourdieu’s rambling diatribe
against Latour is a case in point).211 And like any successful virus, it remains relevant because it
is able to transform and interact with its environment and surroundings, simultaneously having
an impact and being impacted. Last, the ANT virus should be better thought of as a virus with
210 Page 155. Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, USA. 211 Bourdieu, Pierre. 2004. Science of Science and Reflexivity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
115
many strains that are constantly changing (in this regard, perhaps it is better to imagine it as
parasite, such as the notoriously wily trypanosoma, of the protozoan order Kinetoplastida).212
In following the actors involved in ANT’s relatively short (yet action-filled) lifespan,
three methods were employed. The first traced the intellectual development of the theory and the
internal translations of ANT that occurred most heavily during the 1990s and into the present
day. The second traced the actors that carried ANT from one country, discipline, or year to
another. The third method involved interviewing people familiar with ANT (both those who
cited him and not) about how they thought ANT did or did not fit into their discipline, institution,
and personal research.
While these methods do not allow me to make causal statements about why or to what
extent ANT has traveled, it does allow me to catalogue the footprints of its progression. These
findings contribute to the current knowledge in STS and ANT, as there have been no other
studies that have taken such a comprehensive approach to following these particular actors.
Some studies have analyzed how ANT has been cited in specific subject areas, but are limited in
both their disciplinary scope and their temporal scope.213 The dearth of previous research on the
impact of ANT is problematic, as an analysis of ANT’s multi-disciplinary perambulations has
much to offer Development Studies, an equally eclectic domain of study.
Second, this empirical hole is troubling because ANT has much to offer Development
Studies researchers, both from a methodological and a normative standpoint (although the two
212 Pépin, Jacques and Honoré A. Méda. 2001. "The Epidemiology and Control of Human African Trypanosomiasis." Advances in Parasitology 49:71-132. 213 Fenwick, Tara and Richard Edwards. 2010. "Introduction: Reclaiming and Renewing Actor Network Theory for Educational Research." Educational Philosophy and Theory:1-14; Steen, John, Catelijne Coopmans, and Jennifer Whyte. 2006. "Structure and agency? Actor-network theory and strategic organization." Strategic Organization 4:303-312; Tatnall, A. and A. Gilding. 1999. "Actor-network theory and information systems research." Pp. 955-966: Citeseer; Toennesen, Christian, Eamonn Molloy, and Claus D. Jacobs. 2006. "Lost in Translation? Actor-Network Theory and Organisation Studies." in European Group of Organizational Studies, 22nd EGOS Colloquium. Bergen, Norway.
116
intersect at various points). Methodologically, ANT’s emphasis on following the actors/actants
and on making no a priori assumptions and conclusions on the subject matter should appeal
greatly to many in Development Studies. Normatively, ANT provocatively revises previous
conceptions of power negotiations, treating it as an effect rather than a cause. This example ties
together ANT’s methods with its principles and illuminates one of the most emancipatory
possibilities it can offer. Latour addresses the critique that ANT is apolitical:
If there is no way to inspect and decompose the contents of social forces, if they remain unexplained or overpowering, then there is not much that can be done. To insist that behind all the various issues these exists the overarching presence of the same system, the same empire, the same totality, has always struck me as an extreme case of masochism, a perverted way to look for a sure defeat while enjoying the bittersweet feeling of superior political correctness.214
While at first glace Latour is slightly (and yet entertainingly) abrasive to the Development
Studies student—paralyzed by all the woes of the world—his core message is quite optimistic
and inclusive. As an approach, ANT aims to open up its analysis of the social world, stating that
it “should be resumed by future participants and that at every moment the ‘package’ making up
existing social links should be opened for pubic scrutiny.”215 There is work in Development
Studies that flirts with this principle, such as participatory development and other attempts to
include the local actors as much as the researchers or “developers”—such a similarity bodes well
for attempts to translate ANT into Development Studies and vice versa.
Interviewees also noted this characteristic of ANT. For example, Diana Graizbord, a
Sociology PhD student at Brown University, commented that ANT’s methodological
contributions allow the possibilities of one’s research to open up.
214 Page 252. Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, USA. 215 Page 257. Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, USA.
117
It’s sort of exciting in this way, because part of what it is asking sociology to do, is to leave aside the a priori social explanation, so it makes you feel like anything could happen in my research—this is my field site, and who knows what can emerge!216
Another interviewee, Sharon Krause, a professor of Political Theory at Brown University,
explains her introduction to ANT and what she finds most useful:
I got interested in [ANT] and then started reading it and just found the socially distributed and materially distributed conception of agency to be very interesting. Although I don’t in the end accept the more radical version of this—you know, that trees and agents and things…but nevertheless I think there is a tremendously valuable contribution in seeing agency in this more dispersed, distributed way, rather than as the internal property of an individual. I think that is true and interesting and has all kinds of important implications for politics…but has been very, very undeveloped and neglected by political scientists and political theorists. I hope that the diffusion will continue in the field.217
Expanding on the neglect of ANT that has occurred in certain subject areas, Cornel Ban, a
professor of Development Studies (although trained in Political Science) at Brown University,
describes the role that he foresees for ANT in the discipline:
[ANT] hasn’t been used in political science. I was at this talk at Harvard, celebrating Professor Peter A. Hall, and he mentioned that the future belongs to anyone who understands translation really well. Now, he’s a pretty conservative guy, had a really spectacular article on the importance of ideas…[and] whether willingly or not, he started a new research agenda, called constructivist political economy, which is now becoming almost mainstream. Who knows, maybe he is what the French call this “the canary in the mine.” He has a nose for the new flavors. Maybe he got inspired by a few people and said maybe we should use this in political science. … But my field so far has stayed rather quiet on this front and this may be the best way to introduce it.218
He continues, further elaborating on the resistance to this approach within Political Science,
much to the detriment of its field:
…if we are more resistant to this perspective than accountants, then there must be something wrong with us, I mean systemically wrong. Which is great for being an entrepreneur and coming up with a new idea, but I might just as well be shot down over time. I see myself as a bit of a kamikaze scholar…219
216 Graizbord, Diana. 2011. "ANT Interview." edited by S. Evarts. Providence, RI. 217 Krause, Sharon. 2011. "ANT Interview." edited by S. Evarts. Providence, RI. 218 Ban, Cornel. 2011. "ANT Interview." edited by S. Evarts. Providence, RI. 219 Ban, Cornel. 2011. "ANT Interview." edited by S. Evarts. Providence, RI.
118
This thesis aims to map the disciplinary and geographic boundary crossing of ANT, with
the intention of instigating more cross-disciplinary interactions and translations between the
subject areas. It adds on to previous work that either analyzed the theoretical translations and
evolution of ANT and STS, or that traced ANT’s spread in small localities during short time
spans. Following the actors revealed data on where, when, and by whom ANT has been used, an
endeavor that had not yet been attempted. Across all countries, I followed the actors, finding that
ANT was cited moderately during the 1980s, significantly during the 1990s, and super
significantly during the 2000s. Bruno Latour is the most highly cited of the three authors (either
indicative of this or this is indicative of that, Latour has often been used as a shorthand for ANT)
and is most cited in the United States. Michel Callon and John Law are cited significantly less
often than Latour and are both cited most often in England, as opposed to in the United States.
Last, at the international level the subject areas that are most associated with traditional STS
have been cited sooner than the more far-reaching uses of ANT.
Within the United States this thesis followed many of the same types of footprints that
were followed at the international level, but delved deeper, exploring how the three authors were
cited in institutions and academic journals, along with subject areas and time periods. This
section of the analysis presents the most relevant findings, as the bibliometric data collected on
journals and institutions was further analyzed based on the rankings of journals and institutions
according to subject area. The analysis of academic journals found that the three authors tend to
be cited in certain journals, while cited dramatically less in other journals. For example, in the
History and Philosophy and Science, the three authors are cited a total of 343 times in the journal
Social Studies of Science, while are only cited 63 times in Isis, the second highest citing journal
in the subject area.
119
Within institutions, the bibliometric data showed that certain institutions tended to cite
the three authors more than other institutions, a trend which varied across disciplines. Most of
the institutions, or around 63 percent, that cited one of the three authors had either a program or
department related to STS. As such departments are relatively rare, the concentration of citations
of ANT from universities and colleges already familiar with STS is relevant, as it possibly
indicates that while ANT has traveled to far and distant (disciplinary) lands, that it still is picked
up by those already familiar with other STS approaches. However, much more research would be
needed to substantiate this claim any further.
Throughout the analysis, there has been a weight on description, as opposed to on
explanation in order to remain relatively consistent with principles to which ANT subscribes and
to which this author is sympathetic. It would seem disingenuous to fabricate stories on how or
why ANT was cited in particular circumstances, which is why interviews were conducted with
professors and graduate students at Brown University who have studied or taught ANT.
Obviously, a storyline that developed out of only five interviews would be just as specious as a
storyline that developed out of only data points, but their contributions to the debate are helpful
in that they help to fill in some potentialities that the bibliometric analysis leaves blank. The
interviewees do not speak for anyone or anything other than their own opinions and own
research, but their insights add at least five more actors to the heterogeneous network I have
traced.
This network remains incomplete, actively inviting any and all future research ventures.
The limitations to this work are many, as 37 years and tens of thousands of citations mesh and
interact in too many ways to neatly capture in any network, which would be unrealistic anyway.
One of the biggest gaps in this study is an analysis of how the three authors’ works were used in
120
future research. While some studies have touched on this possibility, there remains much work to
continue tracing how those who have picked ANT up and transported it from one discipline to
another have changed it and how its contributions have changed its host discipline. Finally, as
one interviewee suggested, future work on how ANT is referenced by non-bibliographic methods
might also prove fruitful, as many works in Anthropology (in particular), tend to employ a
theoretical and methodological soup that does not necessarily cite its influences explicitly.
121
WORKS CITED
2007. "Logical Positivism." in Philosophy of Science A-Z. Edinburg: Edinburgh University Press.
2007. "Falsificationism." in Philosophy of Science A-Z. Edinburg: Edinburgh University Press.
2007. "Duhem-Quine thesis." in Philosophy of Science A-Z. Edinburg: Edinburgh University Press.
2009. "ISI Web of Knowledge - Journal Citation Reports." Thompson-Reuters.
Akrich, Madeleine. 1992. "The De-Scription of Technical Objects." Pp. 205-224 in Shaping Technology, Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, edited by W. E. Bijker and J. Law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Andersson, Åke E. and Olle Persson. 1993. "Networking scientists." The Annals of Regional Science 27:11-21.
Avgerou, Chrisanthi, Claudio Ciborra, and Frank Land. 2004. "The social study of information and communication technology: innovation, actors and contexts." New York: Oxford University Press.
Ball, P. 2007. "Achievement index climbs the ranks." Nature 448:737-737.
Ban, Cornel. 2011. "ANT Interview." edited by S. Evarts. Providence, RI.
Bar-Ilan, Judit. 2006. "An ego-centric citation analysis of the works of Michael O. Rabin based on multiple citation indexes." Information Processing & Management 42:1553-1566.
Barnes, Barry. 2007. "Catching up with Robert Merton: Scientific Collectives as Status Groups." Journal of Classical Sociology 7:24.
Batty, M. 2003. "The geography of scientific citation." Environment and Planning A 35:761-765.
Ben-David, Joseph. 1991. Scientific Growth: Essays on the Social Organization and Ethos of Science. Berkley: University of California Press.
Berger, Peter L. and Thomas Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Bingham, N. 1996. "Object-ions: from technological determinism towards geographies of relations." Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 14:635-657.
Bird, Alexander. 2000. Thomas Kuhn. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bisin, A. and T. Verdier. 2000. "Beyond the Melting Pot: Cultural Transmission, Marriage, and the Evolution of Ethnic and Religious Traits*." Quarterly Journal of Economics 115:955-988.
122
Bliss, Catherine. 2011. "ANT Interview." edited by S. Evarts. Providence, RI.
Bloomfield, Brian P., Rod Coombs, David J. Cooper, and David Rea. 1992. "Machines and manoeuvres: Responsibility accounting and the construction of hospital information systems." Accounting, Management and Information Technologies 2:197-219.
Bloor, David. 1991. Knowledge and Social Imagery. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bockman, Johanna and Gil Eyal. 2002. "Eastern Europe as a Laboratory for Economic Knowledge: The Transnational Roots of Neoliberalism." American Journal of Sociology 108:43.
Börner, Katy, Shashikant Penumarthy, Mark Meiss, and Weimao Ke. 2006. "Mapping the diffusion of scholarly knowledge among major U.S. research institutions." Scientometrics 68:415-426.
Bosco, Fernando J. 2006. "Actor-network theory, networks, and relational approaches in human geography." Pp. 136-146 in Approaches to human geography, edited by S. C. Aitken and G. Valentine. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 2004. Science of Science and Reflexivity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bowden, Gary. 1995. "Coming of Age in STS: Some Methodological Musings." in Handbook of Science and Technology, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, and T. Pinch. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Broadus, R.N. 1987. "Toward a definition of "bibliometrics"." Scientometrics 12:373-379.
Brown, James Robert. 2001. Who Rules in Science? An Opinionated Guide to the Wars. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Callon, Michel. 1986. "Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay." Pp. 196-223 in Power, action and belief: a new sociology of knowledge?, Sociological Review Monograph, edited by J. Law. London: Routledge.
—. 1998. "The laws of the markets." Oxford: Blackwell.
—. 2001. "Actor Network Theory." Pp. 62-66 in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, edited by J. S. Neil and B. B. Paul. Oxford: Pergamon.
Callon, Michel, Jean-Pierre Courtial, and F. Laville. 1991. "Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemistry." Scientometrics 22:155-205.
Callon, Michel, Jean-Pierre Courtial, W. Turner, and G. Chartron. 1985. "The Translation Model and its Exploitation through Co-word Analysis using Graphs for negotiating Research Policies." Pp. 24-27 in Communications 4S Meeting. Troy, USA.
Callon, Michel, Pierre Lascoumes, and Yannick Barthe. 2009. Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy. Translated by G. Burchell. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Callon, Michel and Bruno Latour. 1992. "Don't Throw the Baby Out with the Bath School! A reply to Collins and Yearley." Pp. 343-68 in Science as Practice and Culture, edited by A. Pickering. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
123
Callon, Michel and John Law. 1989. "On the construction of sociotechnical networks: Content and context revisited." Knowledge and Society 8:57-83.
—. 1997. "After the individual in society: lessons on collectivity from science, technology and society." Canadian Journal of Sociology 22:11.
—. 2004. "Introduction: absence-presence, circulation, and encountering in complex space." Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 22:3-11.
Callon, Michel, John Law, and Arie Rip. 1986. Mapping the dynamics of science and technology: Sociology of science in the real world. London: Macmillan.
Chua, Wai Fong. 1995. "Experts, networks and inscriptions in the fabrication of accounting images: A story of the representation of three public hospitals." Accounting, Organizations and Society 20:111-145.
Collins, H. M. and Steven Yearley. 1992. "Epistemological Chicken." Pp. 301-326 in Science as practice and culture, edited by A. Pickering. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
Comber, A., P. Fisher, and R. Wadsworth. 2003. "Actor-network theory: a suitable framework to understand how land cover mapping projects develop?" Land Use Policy 20:299-309.
Corbin, Juliet and Anselm L. Strauss. 1990. "Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria." Qualitative Sociology 13:20.
Courtial, Jean-Pierre, Michel Callon, and M. Sigogneau. 1984. "Is indexing trustworthy? Classification of articles through co-word analysis." Journal of Information Science 9:47-56.
Cozzens, Susan E. 1985. "Comparing the Sciences: Citation Context Analysis of Papers from Neuropharmacology and the Sociology of Science." Social Studies of Science 15:127-153.
Cozzens, S.E. 1988. "Life History of a Knowledge Claim." Science Communication 9:511.
—. 1989. "What do citations count? The rhetoric-first model." Scientometrics 15:437-447.
Crawford, Cassandra S. 2005. "Actor-Network Theory." in Encyclopedia of Social Theory, vol. 1, edited by G. Ritzer. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Cronin, Blaise. 2008. "On the epistemic significance of place." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59:1002-1006.
Cutliffe, Stephen H. 2000. Ideas, Machines, and Values: An Introduction to Science, Technology, and Society Studies. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Czarniawska, Barbara. 2004. "On Time, Space, and Action Nets." Organization 11:773-791.
Davidson, Donald. 1974. "On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme." Proceedings of the American Philosophical Association 47:16.
De Bakker, Frank G. A., Peter Groenewegen, and Frank Den Hond. 2005. "A Bibliometric Analysis of 30 Years of Research and Theory on Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Social Performance." Business Society 44:283-317.
124
Deleuze, Gilles and Félix Guattari. 1987. A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
DiMaggio, Paul J. and Walter W. Powell. 1983. "The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields." American Sociological Review 48:14.
Estabrooks, C.A., L. Derksen, C. Winther, J.N. Lavis, S.D. Scott, L. Wallin, and J. Profetto-McGrath. 2008. "The intellectual structure and substance of the knowledge utilization field: a longitudinal author co-citation analysis, 1945 to 2004." Implementation Science 3:49.
Ettlinger, Nancy and Fernando Bosco. 2004. "Thinking through networks and their spatiality: a critique of the US (public) war on terrorism and its geographic discourse." Antipode 36:249-271.
Fenwick, Tara and Richard Edwards. 2010. "Introduction: Reclaiming and Renewing Actor Network Theory for Educational Research." Educational Philosophy and Theory:1-14.
—. 2010. Actor-network theory in education. New York: Routledge.
Foucault, Michel. 1979. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Frenken, Koen, Sjoerd Hardeman, and Jarno Hoekman. 2009. "Spatial scientometrics: Towards a cumulative research program." Journal of Informetrics 3:222-232.
Frohmann, B. "TAKING INFORMATION POLICY BEYOND INFORMATION SCIENCE: APPLYING THE ACTOR NETWORK THEORY."
Gad, Christopher and Casper Bruun Jensen. 2010. "On the Consequences of Post-ANT." Science, Technology & Human Values 35:55-80.
Garcia-Parpet, Marie-France. 2007. "The social construction of a perfect market: The strawberry auction at Fontaines-en-Sologne." Pp. 20-53 in Do economists make markets?: on the performativity of economics, edited by D. MacKenzie, F. Muniesa, and L. Siu. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Garfield, E. 1975. "The 'obliteration phenomenon' in science--and the advantage of being obliterated!" Current Contents 51:5-7.
Gilbert, G. Nigel. 1977. "Referencing as Persuasion." Social Studies of Science 7:113-122.
Glänzel, Wolfgang. 2001. "National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations." Scientometrics 51:69-115.
Glaser, Barney G. and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies from Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
Gomart, Emilie. 2002. "Methadone: Six Effects in Search of a Substance." Social Studies of Science 32:93-135.
Graizbord, Diana. 2011. "ANT Interview." edited by S. Evarts. Providence, RI.
Greenhalgh, T. and R. Stones. 2010. "Theorising big IT programmes in healthcare: Strong structuration theory meets actor-network theory." Social Science & Medicine 70:1285-1294.
125
Greimas, Algirdas Julien. 1979. Dictionnaire de sémiotique. Paris: Hachette.
Gross, Neil. 2007. "Pragmatism, Phenomenology, and Twentieth-Century American Sociology." Pp. 183-224 in Sociology in America: A History, edited by C. Calhoun. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Haraway, Donna. 1991. "A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late 20th Century." in Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, edited by D. Haraway. London: Free Association Books.
—. 1991. "Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective." in Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, edited by D. Haraway. London: Free Association Books.
Haraway, Donna J. 1989. Primate visions: Gender, race, and nature in the world of modern science. New York: Routledge.
—. 1994. "A game of cats cradle: science studies, feminist theory, cultural studies." Configurations 1:59-71.
—. 1997. Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium. FemaleMan©_Meets_OncoMouseTM: feminism and technoscience. London: Routledge.
Heidegger, Martin. 1977. The Question Concerning Technology, and Other Essays. Translated by W. Lovitt. New York: Harper & Row.
Henderson, J, P Dicken, M Hess, N Coe, and HWC Yeung. 2002. "Global production networks and the analysis of economic development." Review of international political economy 9:436-464.
Hennion, Antoine. 2001. "Music lovers. Taste as performance." Theory, Culture & Society 18:1-22.
Hetherington, Kevin. 1997. The badlands of modernity: heterotopia and social ordering. London: Routledge.
Hetherington, Kevin and John Law. 2000. "Guest Editorial." Society and Space 18:127-132.
Hinchliffe, S. 1996. "Technology, power, and space--the means and ends of geographies of technology." Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 14:659-682.
—. 1997. "Home-made space and the will to disconnect." Pp. 200-222 in Ideas of Difference: social spaces and the labour of division, edited by K. Hetherington and R. Munro. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hodgson, Geoffrey M. and Harry Rothman. 1999. "The Editors and Authors of Economics Journals: a Case of Institutional Oligopoly?" The Economic Journal 109:165-186.
Hood, W.W. and C.S. Wilson. 2001. "The literature of bibliometrics, scientometrics, and informetrics." Scientometrics 52:291-314.
Hughes, Thomas Parke. 1983. Networks of Power: Electrification in Western society, 1880-1930. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hull, David L. 1988. Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual
126
Development of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jones, Benjamin F., Stefan Wuchty, and Brian Uzzi. 2008. "Multi-University Research Teams: Shifting Impact, Geography, and Stratification in Science." Science 322:1259-1262.
Katzenstein, P.J. and N. Okawara. 2002. "Japan, Asian-Pacific security, and the case for analytical eclecticism." International Security 26:153-185.
Knorr Cetina, Karin. 1995. "Laboratory Studies: The Cultural Approach to the Study of Science." in Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, and T. Pinch. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Krause, Sharon. 2011. "ANT Interview." edited by S. Evarts. Providence, RI.
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970. Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Lambiotte, R. and P. Panzarasa. 2009. "Communities, knowledge creation, and information diffusion." Journal of Informetrics 3:180-190.
Latour, Bruno. 1983. "Give me a laboratory and I will raise the world." Pp. 258-275 in Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science, edited by K. Knorr-Cetina and M. Mulkay. London: SAGE Publications.
—. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
—. 1988. The Pasteurization of France. Translated by A. Sheridan and J. Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
—. 1993. We Have Never Been Modern. Translated by C. Porter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
—. 1996. Aramis, or the Love of Technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. 1996. "On actor-network theory." Soziale Welt 47:369-381.
Latour, Bruno. 1997. "On Actor-Network Theory: A few clarifications." in 'Actor Network and After' Workshop.
—. 1999. "On Recalling ANT." Pp. 15-25 in Actor-Network Theory and after, Sociological Review Monographs, edited by J. Law and J. Hassard. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
—. 1999. "'Thou Shalt Not Take the Lord's Name in Vain': Being a Sort of Sermon on the Hesitations of Religious Speech." RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 39:215-234.
—. 2004. Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
—. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, USA.
Latour, Bruno and Steve Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory life: the social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
127
Law, John. 1987. "Technology and Heterogeneous Engineering: The Case Portuguese Expansion." Pp. 111-134 in The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, edited by W. Bijker, T. Hughes, and T. Pinch. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
—. 1992. "Notes on the Theory of the Actor-Network: Ordering, Strategy and Heterogeneity." Systemic Practice and Action Research 5:379-393.
—. 1999. "After ANT: complexity, naming and topography." Pp. 1-14 in Actor Network Theory and after, Sociological Review Monographs, edited by J. Law and J. Hassard. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
—. 2004. After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. New York: Routledge.
—. 2004. After Method: Mess in Social Science Research, Edited by J. Urry. New York: Routledge.
Law, J. 2008. "On sociology and STS." The Sociological Review 56:623-649.
Law, John. 2009. "Actor-Network Theory and Material Semiotics." Pp. 141-158 in The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, 3rd Edition, edited by B. S. Turner. Oxford: Blackwell.
—. 2009. "The Materials of STS."
Law, John and Annemarie Mol. 2001. "Situating technoscience: an inquiry into spatialities." Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 19:609-621.
Lawrence, P.A. 2008. "Lost in publication: how measurement harms science." Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics(ESEP) 8:9-11.
Lee, Nick and Steve Brown. 1994. "Otherness and the actor network." American Behavioural Scientist 37:772-790.
Lee, N. and J. Hassard. 1999. "Organization unbound: actor-network theory, research strategy and institutional flexibility." Organization 6:391.
Leydesdorff, Loet and Olle Persson. 2010. "Mapping the Geography of Science: Distribution Patterns and Networks of Relations among Cities and Institutes." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61:1622-1634.
Leydesdorff, Loet and Caroline S. Wagner. 2008. "International collaboration in science and the formation of a core group." Journal of Informetrics 2:317-325.
Luukkonen, T. 1997. "Why has Latour's theory of citations been ignored by the bibliometric community? Discussion of sociological interpretations of citation analysis." Scientometrics 38:27-37.
—. 1997. "Why has Latour's theory of citations been ignored by the bibliometric community? Discussion of sociological interpretations of citation analysis." Scientometrics 38:27-37.
M‰hring, M., J. Holmstrˆm, M. Keil, and R. Montealegre. 2004. "Trojan actor-networks and swift translation: Bringing actor-network theory to IT project escalation studies." Information Technology & People 17:210-238.
128
MacKay, J. 2006. "State Failure, Actor-Network Theory, and the Theorisation of Sovereignty." BSIS Journal of International Studies 3:59-96.
MacKenzie, Donald, Fabian Muniesa, and Lucia Siu. 2007. "Do economists make markets?: on the performativity of economics." Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
McCain, Katherine W. 1990. "Mapping authors in intellectual space: A technical overview." Journal of the American Society for Information Science 41:433-443.
McLean, Chris and John Hassard. 2004. "Symmetrical Absence/Symmetrical Absurdity: Critical Notes on the Production of Actor-Network Accounts." Journal of Management Studies 41:493-519.
Meho, Lockman. 2007. "The rise and rise of citation analysis." Physics World.
Meltzer, Bernard N., John W. Petras, and Larry T. Reynolds. 1975. Symbolic Interactionism: Genesis, varieties and criticism, Edited by A. Brittan. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Merton, Robert K. 1973. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, Edited by N. W. Storer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Miettinen, Reijo. 1999. "The riddle of things: activity theory and actor-network theory as approaches to studying innovations." Mind, Culture, and Activity 6:170-195.
Misa, Thomas J. 2009. "History of Technology." in Companion to the Philosophy of Technology, edited by J. K. B. Olsen, S. A. Pedersen, and V. F. Hendricks. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Moed, Henk F. 2002. "The impact-factors debate: the ISI's uses and limits." Nature 415:731-732.
Mol, Annemarie. 2002. The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice, Edited by B. H. Smith and E. R. Weintraub. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Mosse, David. 2005. Cultivating Development: An Ethnography of Aid Policy and Practice. London: Pluto Press.
Mumford, Lewis. 1934. Technics and Civilization. New York: Harcourt Brace.
—. 1967. The Myth of the Machine, vol. 1. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Murdoch, J. 1997. "Towards a geography of heterogeneous associations." Progress in Human Geography 21:321.
—. 1997. "Inhuman/nonhuman/human: actor-network theory and the potential for a dualistic and symmetrical perspective on nature and society." Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 15:731-756.
Murdoch, Jonathan. 1998. "The spaces of actor-network theory." Geoforum 29:357-374.
Murdoch, J. 2001. "Ecologising sociology: Actor-network theory, co-construction and the problem of human exemptionalism." Sociology 35:111-133.
Murdoch, Jonathan. 2006. Post-structuralist geography: a guide to relational space. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.
129
Musolf, Gil Richard. 1992. "Structure, Institutions, Power, and Ideology: New Directions within Symbolic Interactionism." The Sociological Quarterly 33:19.
Mutch, Alistair. 2002. "Actors and Networks or Agents and Structures: Towards a Realist View of Information Systems." Organization 9:477-496.
Newton, T.J. 2002. "Creating the new ecological order? Elias and actor-network theory." Academy of Management Review 27:523-540.
Neyland, Daniel. 2006. "Dismissed Content and Discontent: An Analysis of the Strategic Aspects of Actor-Network Theory." Science, Technology & Human Values 31:29-51.
Nisonger, Thomas E. 2004. "Citation Autobiography: An Investigation of ISI Database Coverage in Determining Author Citedness." College & Research Libraries 65:152-163.
Oppenheim, Robert. 2007. "Actor-Network Theory and Anthropology after Science, Technology, and Society." Anthropological Theory 7:23.
—. 2007. "Actor-network theory and anthropology after science, technology, and society." Anthropological Theory 7:471-493.
Pépin, Jacques and Honoré A. Méda. 2001. "The Epidemiology and Control of Human African Trypanosomiasis." Advances in Parasitology 49:71-132.
Peters, B. Guy. 1999. Institutional Theory in Political Science: The 'New Institutionalism'. New York: Pinter.
Plummer, Ken. 2000. "Symbolic Interactionism in the Twentieth Century." in The Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, edited by B. S. Turner. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, Nathan P. Podsakoff, and Daniel G. Bachrach. 2008. "Scholarly Influence in the Field of Management: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Determinants of University and Author Impact in the Management Literature in the Past Quarter Century." Journal of Management 34:641-720.
Porter, A.L., D.E. Chubin, and X.Y. Jin. 1988. "Citations and scientific progress: comparing bibliometric measures with scientist judgments." Scientometrics 13:103-124.
Prainsack, B. 2009. "Separating The Social From the Natural." Metascience 18:475-479.
Ravetz, Jerome R. 1971. Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems. Oxford: Clarendon.
Reed, M.I. 1997. "In praise of duality and dualism: rethinking agency and structure in organizational analysis." Organization Studies 18:21.
Resnik, Julia. 2006. "International Organizations, the 'Education-Economic Growth' Black Box, and the Development of World Education Culture." Comparative Education Review 50:173-195.
Roosth, Sophia and Susan Silbey. 2009. "Science and Technology Studies: From Controversies to Posthumanist Social Theory." Pp. 452-473 in The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, 3rd Edition, edited by B. S. Turner. Oxford: Blackwell.
130
Ruggie, John Gerard. 1998. "What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge." International Organization 52:31.
Schinkel, Willem. 2007. "Sociological discourse of the relational: the cases of Bourdieu & Latour." The Sociological Review 55:23.
Sekedat, Bradley. 2011. "ANT Interview." edited by S. Evarts. Providence, RI.
Serres, Michel. 1974. La Traduction: Hermes III. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.
Shapin, Steven. 1988. "Review: Following Scientists Around." Social Studies of Science 18:533-550.
Singleton, Vicky. 1998. "Stabilizing instabilities: the role of the laboratory in the United Kingdom cervical screening programme." Pp. 86-104 in Differences in Medicine: Unraveling Practices, Techniques, and Bodies, edited by M. Berg and A. Mol. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Singleton, Vicky and Mike Michael. 1993. "Actor-Networks and Ambivalence: General Practitioners in the UK Cervical Screening Programme." Social Studies of Science 23:227-264.
Sismondo, Sergio. 2010. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Small, Henry. 1999. "Visualizing science by citation mapping." Journal of the American Society for Information Science 50:799-813.
Small, H. and E. Garfield. 1985. "The geography of science: disciplinary and national mappings." Journal of Information Science 11:147-159.
Small, Henry G. 1978. "Cited Documents as Concept Symbols." Social Studies of Science 8:327-340.
Spiegel-Rösing, Ina and Derek de Solla Price. 1977. "Science, Technology and Society: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective." London: Sage.
Star, Susan L. 1991. "Power, technology and the phenomenology of conventions: on being allergic to onions." Pp. 26-56 in A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, edited by J. Law. London: Routledge.
Steen, John, Catelijne Coopmans, and Jennifer Whyte. 2006. "Structure and agency? Actor-network theory and strategic organization." Strategic Organization 4:303-312.
Stone, A.R. 1996. The war of desire and technology at the close of the mechanical age. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Strathern, M. 1996. "Cutting the network." Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 2:517-535.
Suchman, L.A. 2007. Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tatnall, A. and A. Gilding. 1999. "Actor-network theory and information systems research." Pp. 955-966: Citeseer.
Thompson, Charis. 2002. "When elephants stand for competing philosophies of nature: Amboseli National Park, Kenya." Pp. 166-190 in Complexity in Science, Technology, and Medicine, edited
131
by J. Law and A. Mol. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Thrift, Nigel. 1996. Spatial Formations. London: Sage.
—. 1999. "The Place of Complexity." Theory, Culture, and Society 16:39.
Toennesen, Christian, Eamonn Molloy, and Claus D. Jacobs. 2006. "Lost in Translation? Actor-Network Theory and Organisation Studies." in European Group of Organizational Studies, 22nd EGOS Colloquium. Bergen, Norway.
Venturini, Tommaso. 2010. "Diving in magma: how to explore controversies with actor-network theory." Public Understanding of Science 19:258-273.
Whatmore, S. 1997. "Dissecting the autonomous self: hybrid cartographies for a relational ethics." Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 15:37-53.
White, H.D. 1990. "Author co-citation analysis: Overview and defense." Scholarly communication and bibliometrics:84-106.
White, Howard D. 2000. "Toward Ego-centered Citation Analysis." Pp. 475-96 in The Web of Knowledge: A Festschrift in Honor of Eugene Garfield, edited by B. Cronin and H. B. Atkins. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
White, H.D. and K.W. Mccain. 1998. "Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of information science." Citeseer.
Winner, Langdon. 1980. "Do Artifacts Have Politics?" Daedelus 109:16.
Ziman, John. 1984. An Introduction to Science Studies: The Philosophical and Social Aspects of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zitt, M., R. Barrè, A. Sigogneau, and F. Laville. 1999. "Territorial concentration and evolution of science and technology activities in the European Union: a descriptive analysis." Research Policy 28:545-562.
132
APPENDIX A: Tables, Graphs, and Figures Table 1: Data Collection for ISI Web of Science Data Collection
Michel Callon Bruno Latour John Law Total for each # Cited Works (CWs) 139 203 98 440 # Works Citing the Cited Works (WCCWs)
3,490 14,289 2,518 20,297
133
Figure 1: The Origins of Science and Technology Studies
"Boundary Work" (1983) - Gieryn: Student of Merton, broke off with Merton's division between science and non-science, proposing that such boundaries had to be actively maintained - Had many important implications for future STS works
Sociology of Knowledge Philosophy of Science
Relationism (early 1900s) - Mannheim: Influenced by Kant, Durkehim, Dilthy - Focused on the social bases of all knowledge claims
Logical Positivism (1930s) - e.g.,Vienna Circle, Carnap: Resisted Relationism
Falsificationism (1930s) - e.g., Popper, inverted Logical Positivism
During 1930s, these two were the general perspectives on science
"Thought collectives" (1930s) - Fleck: Against both Logical Positivism and Falsificationism; influenced heavily by Durkheim - Emphasized theory shapes observations scientists make Post
WWII...
The ongoing debate between these two subjects
Structural Functionalism (post WWII) - Merton: Evolved out of positivist approaches to science and proposed a normative interpretation of knowledge creation - Against Mannheim's same treatment of all types of knowledge; Merton claimed science was different
Meanwhile, during the 1960s other disciplines began acknowledging their historicity, which
helped instigate greater self-reflection within the sciences
Kuhnian Revolution (1962) - Thomas Kuhn: Influenced by Fleck and against both Logical Positivism and Falsificationism--put Popper in historical context. - Saw science as happening through major shifts in paradigms - Set the groundwork for the many permutations of STS in the future
helped develop various perspectives on science and society.
Science and Technology Studies
Works concerned with the institutionalization, reception, and appropriation of science and technology
Works concerned more with the actual production of science and technology
134
Figure 2: First Strand of STS – Institutionalization of Science and Technology
Institutionalization, reception, and
appropriation of science and technology
Structural Funcationalism (1930s) - Merton: Emphasis on how norms within scientific institutions shape the effect that outside forces have on science - Science is shaped by norms of universalism, communalism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism. Thus, it is socially influenced, but that influence makes it more objective
From the emergence of STS...
Throughout the 1960s and 70s, there was less emphasis on the theory behind Merton's norms and more on how politics influences science and vice versa, but with a more critical approach
Science Institutions and Funding
Outside influences during the 60s and 70s (such as the anti-Vietnam War and anti-nuclear movements), helped foster a more critical approach to scientific and technological topics
Public Understanding of Science (PUS) and Science Education
Role of science and science advising in the government
Technological Innovation, planning, and assessment
Role of scientific evidence in law
Many of the topics studied emerged out of social
movements and activism
"Biosociality" (1992) - Paul Rabinow's term describing how groups mobilize around scientific facts
135
Figure 3: Figure Showing the Development of the Production of Scientific and Technological Knowledge
The Production of Scientific and
Technological Knowledge
Actor-Network Theory
Between science and its context
Between basic science and applied technology
Between scientists and non-scientists
Between science within the EU and the U.S., and the Global South
Takes the symmetry SSK introduced and pushes it one step further, erasing the divide between human and non-human actors. Additionally, it claims to erase boundaries of scale and essentialized categories.
Treats both true and false statements the same
Concerned with conditions that create certain knowledge claims
Explains different belief systems symmetrically
Aims to apply its principles to itself
Greater emphasis on ethnographic research
methods to get at how knowledge was
actually being produced (e.g.,
Laboratory Studies)
More concern with how a diverse and
heterogeneous set of people, machines, animals, objects, etc., relate to one
another
Poststructuralism - Influenced by Foucault's genealogy and by Deleuze and Guattari's nomadic philosophy Philosophy of Science
- Latour's use of Greimas - Callon's use of Michel Serres
"Boundary Work" Continued - Gieryn's idea that the boundary between science and non-science has to be actively maintained, was expanded by STS researchers to include other boundaries:
The Strong Programme (1976) - Edinburgh school of the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) - Erased the disctinction between knowledge of things and knowledge of people--Mannheim thought this distinction was essential
136
Figure 4: Translations Within ANT
Evolution of ANT --> ANT
1990
Elements Added to Theory/Developed
Influences in this Process
U.S. Large Technological Systems Research - Within the History of Science and Technology - E.g., Thomas Hughes - ANT's even-handed analysis of all parts of these large systems.
English STS - Edinburgh School (SSK) and Bath School - E.g. Collins, Bloor, Barnes, etc. - The development of theory through empirical research
French Poststructuralism - E.g., Greimas, Serres, Annales School of History - ANT's emphasis on non-foundational and material semiotic approaches
Translation
Materiality
Power as an effect
Generalized Symmetry
Process and its Precariousness
Heterogeneity
Emphasis on space and scale
Semiotic Relationality
Method: Co-word analysis
ANT 1990 --> Post ANT
Multiplicity Enactment/
Performativity
Fluidity
Realities and goods
Ontological politics
Bodies
Spatialities
Feminism - Haraway's super political material semiotics challenged ANT's ontological politics
Sociology of Economics - Emphasized the role that performativity has in shaping the reality of a market, e.g., Garcia's work on the development of a strawberry market system
Postcolonial Theory - Helped draw attention to the danger in marginalizing actors who are not explicitly drawn into the network, broadening the material semiotic analysis to include the making and doing of goods
Other Subject Areas - Subjects such as Information Technology Studies, Organization Studies, and Geography (among others) all helped to expand ANT's heterogeneous network outwards
Passions
137
Graph 1: Callon, Latour, Law: Citations per Year 1973-2010
Table 2: Callon and Law Top 11 Countries by Total Citations 1973-2011
Michel Callon John Law Total England 896 865 1761 USA 694 537 1231 France 507 76 583 Canada 237 170 407 Netherlands 259 144 403 Australia 170 189 359 Germany 140 69 209 Scotland 105 87 192 Sweden 104 54 158 Denmark 78 57 135 Wales 60 69 129
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
Num
ber
of C
itatio
ns
Year
Bruno Latour
Michel Callon
John Law
138
Table 3: Top 11 countries by total citations from 1973-2011
Michel Callon Bruno Latour John Law Total USA 694 4809 537 6040 England 896 3233 865 4994 Canada 237 1156 170 1563 France 507 734 76 1317 Netherlands 259 623 144 1026 Australia 170 630 189 989 Germany 140 608 69 817 Scotland 105 329 87 521 Sweden 104 339 54 497 Denmark 78 330 57 465 Wales 60 234 69 363 Table 4: Bruno Latour: Citations for Top Ten Subject Areas
Subject Area Number of Citations Sociology 1921 History and Philosophy of Science 1722 Geography 1463 Management 1128 Environmental Studies 874 Anthropology 865 Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary 761 Education & Educational Research 759 Information Science & Library Science 696 Communication 500
139
Chart 1: Bruno Latour: Start Years for Top Six Subject Areas
Table 5: Callon: Top Ten Subject Areas
Subject Area Number of Citations Sociology 637 Management 524 Information Science & Library Science 397 Geography 350 History and Philosophy of Science 286 Environmental Studies 220 Social Science, Interdisciplinary 197 Planning and Development 191 Economics 169 Computer Science, Information Systems 164
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Year
Environmental Studies
Geography
Management
Information Science & Library Science
History and Philosophy of Science
Sociology
140
Chart 2: Michel Callon: Start Years for Top Six Subject Areas
Table 6: John Law: Top Ten Subject Areas
Subject Area Number of Citations Geography 422 Sociology 401 Management 323 History & Philosophy of Science 272 Environmental Studies 235 Information Science & Library Science 151 Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary 128 Social Issues 102 Planning and Development 92 Education & Educational Research 91
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 19
73
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
Year
Environmental Science Geography Management Information Science and Library Science History and Philosophy of Science Sociology
141
Chart 3: John Law: Starting Years for Top Six Subject Areas
Graph 2: Callon, Latour, and Law: Sociology by Country 1973-2010
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Year
Environmental Studies
Geography
Management
Information Science & Library Science
Sociology
History and Philosophy of Science
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Num
ber
of C
itat
ions
Country
142
Graph 3: Callon and Law: Sociology by Country 1973-2010
Graph 4: Callon, Latour, and Law: History and Philosophy of Science by Country
0
50
100
150
200
250
300 N
umbe
r of
Cit
atio
ns
Country
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Num
ber
of C
itat
ions
Country
143
Graph 5: Callon and Law: History and Philosophy of Science by Country
Graph 6: Callon, Latour, and Law: Geography by Country
0
50
100
150
200
250 N
umbe
r of
Cit
atio
ns
Country
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Num
ber
of C
itat
ions
Country
144
Graph 7: Callon and Law: Geography by Country
Graph 8: Callon, Latour, and Law: Management by Country
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450 N
umbe
r of
Cit
atio
ns
Country
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Num
ber
of C
itat
ions
Country
145
Graph 9: Callon and Law: Management by Country
Graph 10: Callon, Latour, and Law: Environmental Studies by Country
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350 N
umbe
r of
Cit
atio
ns
Country
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Num
ber
of C
itat
ions
Country
146
Graph 11: Callon and Law: Environmental Studies by Country
Graph 12: Callon, Latour, and Law: Information Science and Library Science by Country
0
50
100
150
200
250 N
umbe
r of
Cit
atio
ns
Country
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Num
ber
of C
itat
ions
Country
147
Graph 13: Callon and Law: Information Science and Library Science by Country
Graph 14: Callon, Latour, and Law: Citations per Year in the USA 1973-2010
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140 N
umbe
r of
Cit
atio
ns
Country
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Num
ber
of C
itat
ions
Year
148
Table 7: Data Collection for ISI Web of Science Data Collection
Michel Callon Bruno Latour John Law Total # Works Citing the Cited Works (WCCWs) – All countries
3,490 14,289 2,518 20,297
# Works Citing the Cited Works (WCCWs) - USA
693 4798 537 6028
Graph 15: Michel Callon: Citations per Year in the USA 1973-2010
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Num
ber
of C
itat
ions
Year
149
Graph 16: Bruno Latour: Citations per Year in the USA 1973-2010
Graph 17: John Law: Citations per Year in the USA 1973-2010
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450 N
umbe
r of
Cit
atio
ns
Year
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Num
ber
of C
itat
ions
Year
150
Graph 18: Callon, Latour, and Law: Top Ten Subject Areas in USA According to Citation
Graph 19: Callon and Law: Top Ten Subject Areas in USA According to Citation
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900 N
umbe
r of
Cit
atio
ns
Subject Area
0
50
100
150
200
250
Num
ber
of C
itat
ions
Subject Area
151
Chart 4: Callon: Top Five Subject Areas in USA by Start Year 1973-2010
Chart 5: Latour: Top Five Subject Areas in USA by Start Year 1973-2010
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Year
Geography
Management
Information Science & Library Science
Sociology
History and Philosophy of Science
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Year
Management Geography Anthropology Sociology History and Philosophy of Science
152
Chart 6: Law: Top Five Subject Areas in USA by Start Year 1973-2010
Table 8: Percent of total U.S. subject area citations in one of the top ten journals
Michel Callon Bruno Latour John Law History & Philosophy of Science 68.54% 56.31% 72.82% Sociology 27.82% 29.90% 27.91% Anthropology 31.11% 44.16% 23.81% Geography 67.39% 66.14% 71.43% Management 38.75% 30.25% 29.17% Information Science & Library Science 36.78% 23.26% 24.44%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Year
Geography
Management
Information Science & Library Science
Sociology
History and Philosophy of Science
153
Graph 20: Callon, Latour, and Law: Top Ten Journals in the History and Philosophy of Science
Table 9: Top Ten Journals in the History and Philosophy of Science by Author, 1973-2011
Callon Latour Law Total American Journal of Bioethics 0 2 0 2 Social Studies of Science 52 235 56 343 Public Understanding of Science 3 7 1 11 Synthese 0 11 0 11 Philosophy of Science 0 20 0 20 Biology & Philosophy 0 15 2 17 Isis 2 53 8 63 British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 0 8 4 12
Agriculture and Human Values 4 15 4 23 Historia Mathematica 0 0 0 0
Total 61 366 75 502
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
American Journal of Bioethics
Social Studies of Science
Public Understanding
of Science
Synthese Philosophy of Science
Biology & Philosophy
Isis British Journal for the
Philosophy of Science
Agriculture and Human Values
Historia Mathematica
Num
ber
of C
itatio
ns
Top Ten Journals
John Law
Michel Callon
Bruno Latour
154
Graph 21: Callon, Latour, and Law: Top Ten Journals in Sociology (in USA)
Table 10: Top Ten Journals in Sociology by Author, 1973-2011 Callon Latour Law Totals American Sociological Review 4 3 38 45 American Journal of Sociology 12 5 36 53 Journal of Marriage and the Family
0 0 1 1
Social Forces 3 0 10 13 Annual Review of Sociology 10 8 47 65 Social Science Research 0 0 0 0 Sociology 0 0 3 3 Population and Development Review
0 0 2 2
Social Problems 5 5 35 45 Sociology of Health & Illness 3 3 14 20 Totals 37 24 186 247
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
American Sociological
Review
American Journal of Sociology
Journal of Marriage and the
Family
Social Forces Annual Review of Sociology
Social Science Research
Sociology - The Journal of the
British Sociological Association
Population and Development
Review
Social Problems Sociology of Health & Illness
Num
ber
of C
itatti
ons
Source Title
John Law
Michel Callon
Bruno Latour
155
Graph 22: Callon, Latour, and Law: Top Ten Journals in Anthropology (in USA)
Table 11: Top Ten Journals in Anthropology by Author, 1973-2011 Callon Latour Law Total Journal of Human Evolution 0 0 0 0 American Journal of Physical Anthropology 0 0 0 0
Journal of Archeological Science 0 0 0 0 Current Anthropology 2 65 1 68 American Journal of Human Biology 0 0 0 0
Annual Review of Anthropology 1 28 1 30 American Anthropologist 5 43 1 49 American Ethnologist 5 52 2 59 Social Networks 1 0 0 1 Evolutionary Anthropology 0 1 0 1
Total 14 189 5 208
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Journal of Human Evolu6on
American Journal of Physical
Anthropology
Journal of Archeological
Science
Current Anthropology
American Journal of
Human Biology
Annual Review of Anthropology
American Anthropologist
American Ethnologist
Social Networks Evolu6onary Anthropology
Num
ber
of C
itatti
ons
Source Title
John Law
Michel Callon
Bruno Latour
156
Graph 23: Callon, Latour, and Law: Top Ten Journals in Geography (in USA) Table 12: Top Ten Journals in Geography by Author, 1973-2011 Callon Latour Law Total Environment and Planning A 10 43 12 65 Global Environmental Change - Human and Policy Dimensions 0 3 0 3
Progress in Human Geography 5 24 12 41 Landscape and Urban Planning 0 0 0 0 Geoforum 5 39 6 50 Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 2 21 5 28
Annals of the Association of American Geographers 3 45 2 50
Regional Studies 0 1 0 1 Journal of Economic Geography 0 1 1 2 Environment and Planning D-Society & Space 6 32 7 45
Total 31 209 45 285
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Environment and Planning A
Global Envtl Change-Human
and Policy Dimensions
Progress in Human
Geography
Landscape and Urban Planning
Geoforum Transactions of the Inst. of
British Geographers
Annals of the Assn. of
American Geographers
Regional Studies Journal of Economic Geography
Environment and Planning D-Society & Space
Num
ber
of C
itatio
ns
Journal (in ascending order from left to right)
John Law
Bruno Latour
Michel Callon
157
Graph 24: Callon, Latour, and Law: Top Ten Journals in Management (in USA) Table 13: Top Ten Journals in Management by Author, 1973-2011 Callon Latour Law Total Management Science 2 3 0 5 Academy of Management Journal 1 3 1 5 Academy of Management Review 5 15 2 22 Strategic Management Journal 1 9 2 12 Corporate Governance-An International Review 0 0 0 0
Organization Science 5 33 5 43 Operations Research 0 0 0 0 Harvard Business Review 0 0 0 0 Research Policy 16 22 4 42 Journal of Management 1 0 0 1
Total 31 85 14 130
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Management Science
Academy of Management
Journal
Academy of Management
Review
Strategic Management
Journal
Corporate Governance-An
International Review
Organization Science
Operations Research
Harvard Business Review
Research Policy Journal of Management
Num
ber
of C
itatio
ns
Journal (in ascending order from left to right)
John Law
Bruno Latour
Michel Callon
158
Graph 25: Callon, Latour, and Law: Top Ten Journals in Information Science & Library Science (in USA) Table 14: Top Ten Journals in Information Science & Library Science by Author, 1973-2011 Callon Latour Law Total Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 0 1 0 1
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
7 17 5 29
Mis Quarterly 4 10 0 14 Scientometrics 13 11 4 28 Informaion & Management 1 0 0 1 Information Processing & Management 2 6 0 8
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 1 4 0 5
Journal of Management Information Systems 2 1 1 4
Journal of Health Communication 0 0 0 0 Information Systems Research 2 10 1 13
Total 32 60 11 103
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Jour. of the American Medical
Informatics Assn.
Jour. of the American Soc. for Info. Sci.
and Tech.
Mis Quarterly Scientometrics Informaion & Management
Information Processing & Management
Journal of Computer-Mediated Comm.
Journal of Management Info. Systems
Journal of Health Comm.
Information Systems Research
Num
ber
of C
itatio
ns
Journal (in ascending order from left to right)
John Law
Bruno Latour
Michel Callon
159
Table 15: Callon, Latour, and Law: History and Philosophy of Science by Institution (in USA)
Institution # Citations Rank Cornell University 75 17 University of CA – San Diego 49 Harvard University 37 5 University of Wisconsin 31 2 Indiana University 26 11 University of Pennsylvania 19 11 University of Missouri 18 Virginia Polytech Institute & State University 17 Georgia Institute of Technology 16 Stanford University 15 5
Graph 26: Callon, Latour, and Law: Top Ten Institutions in USA for History and Philosophy of Science
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Num
ber
of C
itat
ions
Institution
160
Table 16: Callon and Law: History and Philosophy of Science by Institution (in USA)
Institution # Citations Rank Cornell University 15 17 University of CA – San Diego 15 University of Wisconsin 13 2 Harvard University 9 5 Indiana University 7 11 University of CA – Berkeley 6 1 University of Missouri 6 Brandeis University 5 Colorado State University 5 University of Virginia 5
Graph 27: Callon and Law: Top Ten Institutions in USA for History and Philosophy of Science
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Num
ber
of C
itat
ions
Institution
161
Table 17: Compiled list of the top ten institutions in the top six subject areas
Institution Department/program related to STS (if applicable)
Total Citations Subject Areas in Top Ten Citations
in each
Case Western Reserve University
History and Philosophy of Science major; History of Science, Technology, Environment & Medicine (STEM)
30
Management 12
Information Science & Library Science 18
Columbia University Sociology Department - Gil Eyal teaches there 34 Sociology 34
Copenhagen School of Economics
None listed, but have an affiliation with the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University
15 Management 15
Cornell University Department of Science and Technology Studies 125
History and Philosophy of Science 75 Sociology 31 Anthropology 19
Drexel University College of Information Science and Technology 18 Information Science & Library
Science 18
Georgia Institute of Technology
School of History, Technology, and Society 29
History and Philosophy of Science 16 Information Science & Library Science 13
Georgia State University
J. Mack Robinson College of Business - Computer Information systems
16 Information Science & Library Science 16
Harvard University
Harvard College – History of Science; Kennedy School of Government – Program on Science, Technology and Society
37 History and Philosophy of Science 37
Indiana University Department of History and Philosophy of Science 64
History and Philosophy of Science 26 Information Science & Library Science 38
Michigan State University None listed 25 Sociology 25
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
Program in Science, Technology, and Society; Technology and Policy Program
66 Anthropology 20
Management 46
Northwestern University Science in Human Culture Program 26 Sociology 26
New York University (NYU)
Anthropology Department (Rayna Rapp and Emily Martin both study science and technology); Leonard N. Stern School of Business
29
Anthropology 14
Management 15
Ohio State University None listed, Geography Department 28 Geography 28
Penn State University Science, Technology, and Society Program 21 Management 21
Princeton University The Program in History of Science; Program in Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy
22 Sociology 22
Rutgers State University None listed 22 Sociology 22
Stanford University Program in History and Philosophy of Science and Technology 68
History and Philosophy of Science 15 Sociology 21 Anthropology 16
162
Management 16
Syracuse University None listed, Department of Geography 17 Geography 17
UC Berkeley Science, Technology, and Society Center 25 Anthropology 25
UC Davis Science and Technology Studies 14 Management 14
UC Irvine The Paul Merage School of Business 12 Management 12
UC Los Angeles Center for Society & Genetics; History of Science 33
Geography 16 Information Science & Library Science 17
UC San Diego Science Studies Program 103 History and Philosophy of Science 49 Sociology 38 Anthropology 16
UC Santa Cruz None listed 20 Anthropology 20
University of Arizona None listed, School of Geography and Development (SGD) 14 Geography 14
University of Chicago Morris Fishbein Center for the History of Science and Medicine 36 Anthropology 36
University of Cincinnati
College of Business Administration -- Department of Management 18 Management 18
University of Colorado None listed, Geography Department 19 Geography 19
University of Illinois Information and Society; Social, Community, and Organizational Informatics
61 Sociology 26 Information Science & Library Science 35
University of Kentucky
None listed, Department of Geography 15 Geography 15
University of Maryland None listed, Computer Science 14 Information Science & Library
Science 14
University of Michigan
Science, Technology, and Society Program; Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program
35 Anthropology 19 Information Science & Library Science 16
University of Minnesota
Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science 30 Geography 30
University of Missouri None listed, but have a variety of disciplines that touch on STS subject matter
18 History and Philosophy of Science 18
University of Montreal (Université de Montréal)
None listed, HEC Montréal (business school) 26 Management 26
University of North Carolina History of Science 42
Anthropology 28 Geography 14
University of Pennsylvania
Graduate program in the History and Sociology of Science, Undergraduate programs in Science, Technology and Society and Health and Societies
19 History and Philosophy of Science 19
University of Washington History and Philosophy of Science 41
Geography 29 Information Science & Library Science 12
University of Wisconsin
Holtz Center for Science and Technology Studies 92 History and Philosophy of Science 31
Sociology 31
163
Geography 30 Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University
Science and Technology Studies 17 History and Philosophy of Science 17
Table 18: Callon, Latour, and Law: Sociology by Institution (in USA)
Institution # Citations Rank University of CA – San Diego 38 Columbia University 34 11 Cornell University 31 17 University of Wisconsin 31 2 Northwestern University 26 9 University of Illinois 26 Michigan State University 25 Princeton University 22 3 Rutgers State University 22 Stanford University 21 5
Graph 28: Callon, Latour, and Law: Top Ten Institutions in USA for Sociology
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Num
ber
of C
itat
ions
Institution
164
Table 19: Callon and Law: Sociology by Institution (in USA)
Institution # Citations Rank University of CA – San Diego 15 Columbia University 12 11 Michigan State University 11 University of Illinois 10 Cornell University 9 17 Stanford University 9 5 University of CA – Berkeley 8 1 Colorado State University 7 Rutgers State University 6 University of CA – Santa Cruz 6
Graph 29: Callon and Law: Top Ten Institutions in USA for Sociology
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Num
ber
of C
itat
ions
Institution
165
Table 20: Callon, Latour, and Law: Anthropology by Institution (in USA)
Institution # Citations Rank University of Chicago 36 5 University of North Carolina 28 5 University of CA – Berkeley 25 1 MIT 20 University of CA – Santa Cruz 20 Cornell University 19 17 University of Michigan 19 3 Stanford University 16 5 University of CA – San Diego 16 NYU 14 14
Graph 30: Callon, Latour, and Law: Top Ten Institutions in USA for Anthropology
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Num
ber
of C
itat
ions
Institution
166
Table 21: Callon and Law: Anthropology by Institution (in USA)
Institution # Citations Rank University of Virginia 5 Cornell University 4 17 Rice University 4 University of CA – Santa Cruz 4 NYU 3 14 Stanford University 3 5 University of Arizona 3 20 University of CA – Berkeley 3 1 University of CA – Irvine 3 University of Minnesota 3 20
Graph 31: Callon and Law: Top Ten Institutions in USA for Anthropology
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Num
ber
of C
itat
ions
Institution
167
Table 22: Callon, Latour, and Law: Geography by Institution (in USA)
Institution # Citations Rank University of Minnesota 30 20 University of Wisconsin 30 2 University of Washington 29 17 Ohio State University 28 17 University of Colorado 19 Syracuse University 17 University of CA – Los Angeles 16 9 University of Kentucky 15 University of Arizona 14 20 University of North Carolina 14 5
Graph 32: Callon, Latour, and Law: Top Ten Institutions in USA for Geography
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Num
ber
of C
itat
ions
Institution
168
Table 23: Callon and Law: Geography by Institution (in USA)
Institution # Citations Rank University of Washington 11 17 University of Minnesota 7 20 University of Wisconsin 7 2 University of Colorado 6 University of Massachusetts 5 Clark University 4 Dartmouth College 4 Florida State University 4 Ohio State University 4 17 University of Kentucky 4
Graph 33: Callon and Law: Top Ten Institutions in USA for Geography
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Num
ber
of C
itat
ions
Institution
169
Table 24: Callon, Latour, and Law: Management by Institution (in USA)
Institution # Citations Rank MIT 46 3 Pennsylvania State University 21 University of Cincinnati 18 Stanford University 16 1 NYU 15 10 University of CA – Davis 14 Case Western Reserve University 12 University of CA – Irvine 12 University of Illinois 12 University of Washington 11
Graph 34: Callon, Latour, and Law: Top Ten Institutions in USA for Management
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Num
ber
of C
itat
ions
Institution
170
Table 25: Callon and Law: Management by Institution (in USA)
Institution # Citations Rank MIT 14 3 NYU 7 10 Pennsylvania State University 7 Stanford University 7 1 University of Massachusetts 5 Georgia Institute of Technology 4 SUNY Albany 4 University of Southern California 4 21 University of Washington 4 New York Institute of Technology 3
Graph 35: Callon and Law: Top Ten Institutions in USA for Management
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Num
ber
of C
itat
ions
Institution
171
Table 26: Callon, Latour, and Law: Information Sciences and Library Sciences by Institution (in USA)
Institution # Citations Rank Indiana University 38 7 University of Illinois 35 1 Case Western Reserve University 18 Drexel University 18 9 University of CA – Los Angeles 17 14 Georgia State University 16 University of Michigan 16 5 University of Maryland 14 10 Georgia Institute of Technology 13 University of Washington 12 4
Graph 36: Callon, Latour, and Law: Top Ten Institutions in USA for Information Science & Library Science
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Num
ber
of C
itat
ions
Institution
172
Table 27: Callon and Law: Information Sciences and Library Sciences by Institution (in USA)
Institution # Citations Rank Drexel University 11 9 Indiana University 11 7 University of Illinois 9 1 University of Maryland 8 10 University of CA – Los Angeles 7 14 Georgia Institute of Technology 6 Georgia State University 6 University of CA – Berkeley 6 Institute of Science Information 5 MIT 5
Graph 37: Callon and Law: Top Ten Institutions in USA for Information Science & Library Science
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Num
ber
of C
itat
ions
Institution
173
APPENDIX B: Michel Callon’s Works Included in Analysis
Callon, Michel. "Les Modes De Détermination De La Politique De Recherche D’une Entreprise; Rapports Entre Science Et Économie." Sociologie Du Travail 1 (1972): 35-70.
———. "Les Firmes Multinationales: Un Théâtre D'ombres." Sociologie Du Travail 2 (1974): 113-40.
———. "Les Opèrations De Traductions." In Incidence Des Rapports Sociaux Sur Le Dèveloppment Scientifique. Paris: CNRS, 1975.
———. "Organisation Locale Et Enjeux Sociétaux." Sociologie Du Travail 3 (1976): 233-55.
———. "Breaking Down the Organization; Local Conflicts and Social Systems of Action." Social Science Information 16, no. 2 (1977): 147-77.
———. "L’état Face À L’innovation Technique. Le Cas Du Véhicule Électrique." Revue Francaise De Science Politique 29, no. 3 (1979): 426-47.
———. "Struggles and Negotiations to Decide What Is Problematic and What Is Not: The Socio-Logics of Translation." In The Social Process of Scientific Investigation, edited by K.D. Knorr, R. Krohn and R. Whitley. Dordrecht: Holland. D. Reidel, 1980.
———. "The State and Technical Innovation: A Case Study of the Electrical Vehicle in France." Research Policy 9, no. 4 (1980): 358-76.
———. "Boites Noires Et Operations De Traduction." Economie et Humanisme 262 (1981): 53-59.
———. "Pour Une Sociologie Des Controverses Technologiques." Fundamenta Scientiae 2, no. 3/4 (1981): 381-99.
Callon, Michel, and Bruno Latour. "Unscrewing the Big Leviathan: How Actors Macro-Structure Reality and How Sociologists Help Them to Do So." In Advances in Social Theory and Methodology: Towards an Integration of Micro and Macro-Sociologies, edited by Karin Knorr-Cetina and Aaron Cicourel, 277-303. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1981.
Callon, Michel, and John Law. "On Interests and Their Transformation: Enrolment and Counter-Enrolment." Social Studies of Science 12, no. 4 (1982): 615-25.
Callon, Michel, Jean-Pierre Courtial, W. Turner, and S. Bauin. "From Translation to Problematic
174
Networks : An Introduction to Co-Word Analysis." Social Science Information 22, no. 2 (1983): 191-235.
Callon, Michel, Jean-Pierre Courtial, W. A. Turner, and S. Bauin. "From Translation to Network - the Co-Word Analysis." Scientometrics 5, no. 1 (1983): 78-78.
Callon, Michel, F. Bastide, S. Bauin, Jean-Pierre Courtial, and W. Turner. "Les Mécanismes D’intéressement Dans Les Textes Scientifiques." Cahiers STS 5 (1984): 88-105.
Courtial, Jean-Pierre, Michel Callon, and M. Sigogneau. "Is Indexing Trustworthy? Classification of Articles through Co-Word Analysis." Journal of Information Science 9, no. 2 (1984): 47-56.
Callon, Michel, Jean-Pierre Courtial, W. Turner, and G. Chartron. "The Translation Model and Its Exploitation through Co-Word Analysis Using Graphs for Negotiating Research Policies." In Communications 4S Meeting, 24-27. Troy, USA, 1985.
Callon, Michel, and Bruno Latour. Les Scientifiques Et Leurs Alliés. Paris: Pandore, 1985.
Callon, Michel. "Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay." In Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge?, edited by John Law, 196-223. London: Routledge, 1986.
———. "Éléments Pour Une Sociologie De La Traduction. La Domestication Des Coquilles Saint-Jacques Et Des Marins-Pêcheurs Dans La Baie De Saint-Brieuc." L'Année Sociologique 36 (1986): 169-208.
———. "Comment Concevoir Les Innovations? Clefs Pour L’analyse Socio-Technique." Prospective et Santé 36, no. hiver (1986): 13-25.
Callon, Michel, John Law, and Arie Rip. Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology: Sociology of Science in the Real World. London: Macmillan, 1986.
Callon, Michel, J. Law, and A. Rip. "Qualitative Scientometrics." In Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology. Sociology of Science in the Real World, edited by Michel Callon, John Law and A. Rip. London: Macmillan, 1986.
Callon, Michel. "Society in the Making: The Study of Technology as a Tool for Sociological Analysis." In New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, edited by W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes and T. Pinch, 83-103. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987.
———. "Society in the Making: The Study of Technology as a Tool for Sociological Analysis." In The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, edited by Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes and Trevor Pinch, 83-103. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987.
Callon, Michel, and L. Leydersdorff. "La Recherche Française Est-Elle En Bonne Santé?" La Recherche 18, no. 186 (1987): 412-19.
175
Akrich, M., Michel Callon, and Bruno Latour. "L'art De L'intéressement. L'art De Choisir Les Bons Porte-Parole " In Gestion De La Recherche. Nouveaux Problèmes, Nouveaux Outils., edited by D. Vinck, 27-76. Bruxelles: De Boeck, 1988.
———. "A Quoi Tient Le Succès Des Innovations?" Gérer et Comprendre, Annales des Mines 11 (1988): 4-17.
Law, John, and Michel Callon. "Engineering and Sociology in a Military Aircraft Project: A Network Analysis of Technological Change." Social problems 35, no. 3 (1988): 284-97.
Bastide, F., Jean-Pierre Courtial, and Michel Callon. "The Use of Review Articles in the Analysis of a Research Area." Scientometrics 15, no. 5 (1989): 535-62.
Callon, Michel. Innovation Et Ressources Locales. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1989.
———. La Science Et Ses Réseaux. Paris: La Découverte, 1989.
Callon, Michel, and John Law. "On the Construction of Sociotechnical Networks: Content and Context Revisited." Knowledge and Society 8, no. 1 (1989): 57-83.
———. "La Protohistoire D'un Laboratoire." In La Science Et Ses Réseaux, edited by Michel Callon, 67-116. Paris: Editions de la Decouverte and Council of Europe, 1989.
———. "La Protohistoire D’un Laboratoire : Le Difficile Mariage De La Science Et De L’économie." Cahiers de Centre d'Études pour l'Empiol 32 (1989).
Callon, Michel. "Techno-Economic Networks and Irreversibility." In Conference on Firm Strategy and Technical Change: Micro Economics or Micro Sociology?, 27-28 September. Manchester, UK, 1990.
Callon, Michel, Jean-Pierre Courtial, and F. Laville. "La Méthode Des Mots Associés Comme Outil D’analyse Des Interactions Entre Recherche De Base Et Recherche Appliquée: Le Cas Des Polymères." Les Cahiers de l’ADEST, no. Juin (1990).
Laredo, P., and Michel Callon. L'impact Des Programmes Communautaires Sur Le Tissu Scientifique Et Technique Francais: Rapport Du Centre De Sociologie De L'innovation De L'ecole Des Mines De Paris. Paris: La Documentation française, 1990.
Callon, Michel. "Techno-Economic Networks and Irreversibility." In A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, edited by John Law, 132-61. New York: Routledge, 1991.
———. "Rèseaux Technico-Èconomiques Et Irrèversibilitès." Les figures de líirrèversibilitè en èconomie (1991): 195-230.
Callon, Michel, Jean-Pierre Courtial, P. Crance, P. Larèdo, P. Mauguin, Vololona Rabeharisoa, YA Rocher, and D. Vinck. "Tools for the Evaluation of Technological Programmes: An Account of Work Done at the Centre for the Sociology of Innovation." Technology
176
Analysis & Strategic Management 3, no. 1 (1991): 3-41.
Callon, Michel, Jean-Pierre Courtial, and F. Laville. "Co-Word Analysis as a Tool for Describing the Network of Interactions between Basic and Technological Research: The Case of Polymer Chemsitry." Scientometrics 22, no. 1 (1991): 155-205.
Callon, Michel, and Bruno Latour. La Science Telle Qu'elle Se Fait: Anthologie De La Sociologie Des Sciences De Langue Anglaise. Paris: La Découverte, 1991.
Callon, Michel, and A. Rip. "Forums Hybrides Et Négociations Des Normes Socio-Techniques Dans Le Domaine De L'environnement." Environnement, Science et Politique 13 (1991): 227-38.
Courtial, Jean-Pierre, and Michel Callon. "Indicators for the Identification of Strategic Themes within a Research Programme." Scientometrics 21, no. 3 (1991): 447-57.
Laredo, P., and Michel Callon. "Les Etats Nationaux Ont-Ils Encore La Maîtrise De Leur Politique De La Recherche Et De La Technologie ? Etude De L'impact Des Programmes Communautaires De Recherche Sur Le Tissu Scientifique Et Technique Français." Politique et Management Public 9 (1991): 257-75.
Bijker, Wiebe, and John Law. Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992.
Callon, Michel. "Sociologie Des Sciences Et Économie Du Changement Technique: L'irrésistible Montée Des Réseaux Technico-Économiques." In Ces Réseaux Que La Raison Ignore, edited by L'innovation CDSD, 53-78. Paris: L'Harmattan, 1992.
———. "Variety and Irreversibility in Networks of Technique Conception and Adoption." In Technology and the Wealth of Nations: The Dynamics of Constructed Advantage, edited by Dominique Foray and C. Freeman, 275-324. London: Pinter, 1992.
———. "Variété Et Irréversibilité Dans Les Réseaux De Conception Et D'adoption Des Techniques." In La Technologie Et La Richesse Des Nations, edited by Dominique Foray and C. Freeman, 275-324. Paris: Economica, 1992.
Callon, Michel, P. Larèdo, and T. Rabeharisoa. "The Management and Evaluation of Technological Programs and the Dynamics of Techno-Economic Networks: The Case of the Afme." Research Policy 21, no. 3 (1992): 215-36.
Callon, Michel, and Bruno Latour. "Don't Throw the Baby out with the Bath School! A Reply to Collins and Yearley"." In Science as Practice and Culture, edited by A. Pickering, 343-68. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.
Callon, Michel, and Arie Rip. "Humains, Non-Humains: Morale D'une Coexistence." In La Terre Outragee. Les Experts Sont Formel!, edited by J. Theys and B. Kalaora. Paris: Editions Autrement, 1992.
177
Law, John, and Michel Callon. "The Life and Death of an Aircraft: A Network Analysis of Technical Change." Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (1992): 21-52.
Callon, Michel. "Agency and the Hybrid Collective." In Non-Human Agency: A Contradiction in Terms?, edited by Michel Callon and John Law. Houndsmill: Macmillan, 1993.
Callon, Michel, Jean-Pierre Courtial, and Hervé Penan. La Scientométrie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1993.
Courtial, Jean-Pierre, Michel Callon, and A. Sigogneau. "The Use of Patent Titles for Identifying the Topics of Invention and Forecasting Trends." Scientometrics 26, no. 2 (1993): 231-42.
Callon, Michel. "Is Science a Public Good? Fifth Mullins Lecture, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 23 March 1993." Science, Technology & Human Values 19, no. 4 (1994): 395.
———. "L'innovation Technologique Et Ses Mythes." Annales des Mines, Gérer et Comprendre, no. mars (1994): 5-17.
Callon, Michel, and G. Bell. "Réseaux Technico-Économiques Et Politique Scientifique Et Technologique." STI-OCDE 14 (1994): 67-127.
Callon, Michel, P. Laredo, and P. Mustar. "Panorama De La Science Française." La Recherche 25, no. 264 (1994): 378-83.
Courtial, Jean-Pierre, T. Cahlik, and Michel Callon. "A Model for Social Interaction between Cognition and Action through a Key-Word Simulation of Knowledge Growth." Scientometrics 31, no. 2 (1994): 173-92.
Callon, Michel. "Four Models for the Dynamics of Science." In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 29-63. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 1995.
———. "Technological Conception and Adoption Network: Lessons for the Cta Practitioner." In Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment, edited by Arie Rip, Thomas J. Misa and Johan Schot. London: Pinter Publishers, 1995.
Callon, Michel, Jean-Pierre Courtial, and Hervé Penan. Cienciometria. El Estudio Cuantitativo De La Actividad Cientifica: De La Bibliometria a La Vigilancia Tecnologica. Gijon: Trea, 1995.
Callon, Michel, P. Laredo, and P. Mustar. La Gestion Stratégique De La Recherche Et De La Technologie : L'évaluation Des Programmes. Paris: Economica, 1995.
Callon, Michel, and John Law. "Agency and the Hybrid Collectif." South Atlantic Quarterly 94 (1995): 481-507.
Mangematin, V., and Michel Callon. "Technological Competition, Strategies of the Firms and
178
the Choice of the First Users: The Case of Road Guidance Technologies." Research Policy 24, no. 3 (1995): 441-58.
Callon, Michel. "Le Travail De La Conception En Architecture." Cahiers de la Recherche architecturale 37, no. 1 (1996): 25-35.
———. "Les Enjeux Économiques De La Recherche Publique." La Vie des Sciences 13, no. 1 (1996): 11-24.
———. "Analysis of Strategic Relations between Firms and University Laboratories." Paper presented at the Conference on the need for a new economics of science, Notre Dame, 1997.
———. "Défense Et Illustration Des Science Studies." La Recherche, no. 299 (1997).
———. "Four Models for the Dynamics of Science." In Science and the Quest for Reality, edited by A. I. Tauber. Houndmills, UK: MacMillan Press, 1997.
———. "Actor-Network Theory - the Market Test." In Workshop Centre for Social Theory and Technology (CSTT). Staffordshire, UK: Keele University, 1997.
Callon, Michel, and Dominique Foray. "Introduction: Nouvelle Économie De La Science Ou Socio-Économie De La Recherche Scientifique?" Revue d'économie industrielle 79 (1997): 13-35.
Callon, Michel, P. Laredo, and P. Mustar, eds. The Strategic Management of Research and Technology: Evaluation of Programmes. Paris: Economica international, 1997.
Callon, Michel, P. Laredo, and Vololona Rabeharisoa. "Que Signifie Innover Dans Les Services? Une Triple Rupture Avec Le Modèle De L'innovation Industrielle." La Recherche, no. 294 (1997): 34-36.
Callon, Michel, and Bruno Latour. "'Tu Ne Calculeras Pas!' Ou Comment Symétriser Le Don Et Le Capital." Revue de MAUSS 9, no. 45-70 (1997).
Callon, Michel, and John Law. "After the Individual in Society: Lessons on Collectivity from Science, Technology and Society." Canadian Journal of Sociology/Cahiers canadiens de sociologie 22, no. 2 (1997): 165-82.
———. "L'irruption Des Non-Humains Dans Les Sciences Humaines: Quelques Leáons Tirèes De La Sociologie Des Sciences Et Des Techniques." In Les Limites De La Rationalite: Vol 2, Les Figures Du Collectif, edited by B. Reynaud, 99-118. Paris: La Dècouverte, 1997.
Callon, Michel. "Introduction: The Embeddedness of Economic Markets in Economics." In The Laws of the Markets, edited by Michel Callon, 1-57. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 1998.
179
———, ed. The Laws of the Markets, Sociological Review Monographs. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 1998.
———. "Les Pouvoirs Publics Doivent-Ils Soutenir La Recherche Académique?" Annales des Mines, no. février (1998): 59-64.
———. "Des Différentes Formes De Démocratie Technique." Annales des Mines, no. janvier (1998): 63-73.
Callon, Michel, and Vololona Rabeharisoa. "Reconfiguring Trajectories: Collective Bodies and Chronic Illnesses." In Theorizing Bodies in Medical Practice Workshop. Paris, 1998.
Rabeharisoa, Vololona, and Michel Callon. "L'implication Des Malades Dans Les Activités De Recherche Soutenues Par L'association Française Contre Les Myopathies." Sciences Sociales Et Sante 16, no. 3 (1998): 41.
Callon, Michel. "Actor-Network Theory—the Market Test." In Actor Network Theory and After, edited by John Law and John Hassard, 15-25. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 1999.
———. "Intellectual Impostures." Social Studies of Science 29, no. 2 (1999): 261-86.
———. "La Sociologie Peut-Elle Enrichir L'analyse Économique Des Externalités? Essai Sur La Notion De Cadrage-Débordement." In Innovations Et Performances. Approches Interdisciplinaires, edited by Dominique Foray and Jacques Mairesse, 399-431. Paris: Éditions de l'école des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, 1999.
———. "Des Différentes Formes De Démocratie Technique." Les Cahiers de la sécurité intérieure 38 (1999): 37-54.
———. "Le Rèseau Comme Forme Emergente Et Comme Modalitè De Coordination: Le Cas Des Interactions Stratègiques Entre Firmes Industrielles Et Laboratoires Acadèmiques." In Rèseau Et Coordination, edited by Michel Callon, P. Cohendet, N. Curien, J. M. Dalle, F. Eymard-Duvernay, Dominique Foray and E. Schhenk. Paris: Economica, 1999.
———. "The Role of Lay People in the Production and Dissemination of Scientific Knowledge." Science Technology & Society 4, no. 1 (1999): 81.
———. "Ni Intellectuel Engagé, Ni Intellectuel Dégagé: La Double Stratégie De L'attachement Et Du Détachement." Sociologie Du Travail 41, no. 1 (1999): 65-78.
Callon, Michel, R. Coenen, W. M. Cohen, C. Freeman, F. Kodama, F. Meyer-Krahmer, K. L. R. Pavitt, and G. P. Pisano. "Retrospective Evaluation (1971-1999)." Research Policy 28, no. 9 (1999): 911-19.
Callon, Michel, and Vololona Rabeharisoa. "De La Sociologie Du Travail Appliquée À L'opération Chirurgicale : Ou Comment Faire Disparaître La Personne Du Patient?" Sociologie Du Travail 41, no. 143-162 (1999).
180
———. "Articulating Bodies: The Case of Muscular Dystrophies." In Bodies on Trial: Performance and Politics in Medicine and Biology, edited by M. Akrich and M. Berg. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1999.
Rabeharisoa, Vololona, and Michel Callon. Le Pouvoir Des Malades: L'association Franáaise Contre Les Myopathies Et La Recherche. Paris: Presses de l'Ecole des mines, 1999.
Callon, Michel. "La Confiance Et Ses Régimes : Quelques Leçons Tirées De L'histoire Des Sciences." In La Confiance En Question, edited by R. Laufer and M. Orillard. Paris: L'Harmattan, 2000.
Callon, Michel, Cécile Mèadel, and Vololona Rabeharisoa. "L'èconomie Des Qualitès." Politix 13, no. 52 (2000): 211-39.
Rabeharisoa, V., and Michel Callon. "Les Associations De Malades Et La Recherche. Ii. Les Formes D'engagement Des Associations De Malades Dans La Recherche En France." Médecine/Sciences 16 (2000): 1225-31.
———. "Les Associations De Malades Et La Recherche. I. Des Self-Help Groups Aux Associations De Malades." Médecine/Sciences 16 (2000): 945-49.
Callon, Michel. "Actor Network Theory." In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, edited by J. Smelser Neil and B. Baltes Paul, 62-66. Oxford: Pergamon, 2001.
———. "Les Méthodes D'analyse Des Grands Nombres." In Sociologie Du Travail: Quarante Ans Après, edited by A. Pouchet, 335-54. Paris: Elsevier, 2001.
Callon, Michel, Pierre Lascoumes, and Yannick Barthe. Agir Dans Un Monde Incertain: Essai Sur La Dèmocratie Technique. Paris: Editions du seuil, 2001.
Callon, Michel. "Writing and (Re) Writing Devices as Tools for Managing Complexity." Complexities: social studies of knowledge practices (2002): 191.
———. "From Science as an Economic Activity to Socioeconomics of Scientific Research. The Dynamics of Emergent and Consolidated Techno-Economic Networks." In Science Bought and Sold. Essays in the Economics of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002.
———. "The Increasing Involvement of Concerned Groups in R&D Policies: What Lessons for Public Powers?" In NPRnet Symposium. Sussex, England: University of Sussex, 2002.
———. "Les Controverses Socio-Techniques." La Revue de la confédération française démocratique du travail, no. janvier (2002): 15-23.
Callon, Michel, A. Barry, and D. Slater. "Technology, Politics and the Market: An Interview with Michel Callon." Economy and Society 31, no. 2 (2002): 285-306.
181
Callon, Michel, C. Mèadel, and Vololona Rabeharisoa. "The Economy of Qualities." Economy and Society 31, no. 2 (2002): 194-217.
Rabeharisoa, V., and Michel Callon. "The Involvement of Patients' Associations in Research." International Social Science Journal 54, no. 171 (2002): 57-63.
Callon, Michel. "Le Renouveau De La Question Sociale: Individus Habilités Et Groupes Concernés." In Nouvelle Èconomie, Nouvelles Exclusions?, edited by P. Moati, 207-43: Editions de l'Aube, 2003.
———. "The Increasing Involvement of Concerned Groups in R&D Policies: What Lessons for Public Powers?" Science and innovation: Rethinking the rationales for funding and governance (2003): 30.
———. "Science Et Société : Les Trois Traductions." Les Cahiers du MURS 42 (2003): 57-69.
Callon, Michel, and Fabian Muniesa. "Les Marchès Èconomiques Comme Dispositifs Collectifs De Calcul." RÈseaux, no. 6 (2003): 189-233.
Callon, Michel, and Vololona Rabeharisoa. "Research." Technology in Society 25, no. 2 (2003): 193-204.
Callon, Michel. "Europe Wrestling with Technology." Economy and Society 33, no. 1 (2004): 121 - 34.
———. "The Role of Hybrid Communities and Socio-Technical Arrangements in the Participatory Design." Journal of the center for information studies 5, no. 3 (2004): 3-10.
Callon, Michel, and John Law. "Introduction: Absence-Presence, Circulation, and Encountering in Complex Space." Society and Space 22, no. 1 (2004): 3-11.
Callon, Michel, and Vololona Rabeharisoa. "Articulating Bodies: The Case of Muscular Dystrophies." Body and Society 22, no. 10 (2004): 183-203.
———. "Gino's Lesson on Humanity: Genetics, Mutual Entanglements and the Sociologistís Role." Economy and Society 33, no. 1 (2004): 1-27.
Callon, Michel. "Why Virtualism Paves the Way to Political Impotence: A Reply to Daniel Miller's Critique of the Laws of the Markets." Economic sociology: European electronic newsletter 6, no. 2 (2005): 3-20.
———. "Disabled Persons of All Countries, Unite!" In Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy, edited by Bruno Latour and P. Weibel, 308-13. Cambridge, MA: MIT press, 2005.
Callon, Michel, and K. Caliskan. "New and Old Directions in the Anthropology of Markets." Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, New York, April 9 (2005).
182
Callon, Michel, and John Law. "On Qualculation, Agency, and Otherness." Society and Space 23, no. 5 (2005): 717-33.
Callon, Michel, and Fabian Muniesa. "Peripheral Vision Economic Markets as Calculative Collective Devices." Organization Studies 26, no. 8 (2005): 1229-50.
Joly, P.B., Michel Callon, L. Dianoux, JM Fourniau, C. Gilbert, MA Hermitte, C. Joseph, A. Kaufmann, R. LarrËre, and C. Neubauer. "Democratie Locale Et Maitrise Sociale Des Nanotechnologies." Les publics Grenoblois Peuvent-ils Participer aux Choix Scienti ques et Techniques (2005).
Callon, Michel. "Can Methods for Analysing Large Numbers Organize a Productive Dialogue with the Actors They Study?" European Management Review 3, no. 1 (2006): 7-16.
Callon, Michel, and Bruno Latour. "Die Demontage Des Groben Leviathans: Wie Akteure Die Makrostruktur Des Realität Bestimmen Und Soziologen Ihnen Dabei Helfen." In Anthology: Ein Einf¸Hrendes Handbuch Zur Akteur-Netzwerk-Theorie, edited by A. Belliger, 75-101. Bielefeld: Transcript, 2006.
Callon, Michel. "What Does It Mean to Say That Economics Is Performative." In Do Economists Make Markets? On the Performativity of Economics, edited by D. Mackenzie, F. Muniesa and L. Siu, 311-57. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007.
———. "An Essay on the Growing Contribution of Economic Markets to the Proliferation of the Social." Theory, Culture & Society 24, no. 7-8 (2007): 139-63.
Muniesa, Fabian, Yuval Millo, and Michel Callon. "An Introduction to Market Devices." The Sociological Review 55 (2007): 1-12.
Callon, Michel. "Economic Markets and the Rise of Interactive Agencements: From Prosthetic Agencies to Habilitated Agencies." In Living in a Material World: Economic Sociology Meets Science and Technology Studies, edited by Trevor Pinch and Richard Swedberg, 29-56. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008.
Callon, Michel, and Vololona Rabeharisoa. "The Growing Engagement of Emergent Concerned Groups in Political and Economic Life." Science, Technology & Human Values 33, no. 2 (2008): 230.
Caliskan, K., and Michel Callon. "Economization, Part 1: Shifting Attention from the Economy Towards Processes of Economization." Economy and Society 38, no. 3 (2009): 369-98.
Callon, Michel. "Civilizing Markets: Carbon Trading between in Vitro and in Vivo Experiments." Accounting, Organizations and Society 34, no. 3-4 (2009): 535-48.
Callon, Michel, Pierre Lascoumes, and Yannick Barthe. Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy. Translated by Graham Burchell. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009.
183
Martin, B.R., M. Bell, Michel Callon, H. Grupp, F. Kodama, S. Kuhlmann, L. Fleming, N. Von Tunzelmann, and W. Powell. "Ees and the Continuing Evolution of Research Policy." Research Policy 38, no. 5 (2009): 695-99.
Caliskan, K., and Michel Callon. "Economization, Part 2: A Research Programme for the Study of Markets." Economy and Society 39, no. 1 (2010): 1-32.
184
APPENDIX C: Bruno Latour’s Works Included in Analysis
Latour, Bruno. "Forecasting by a Major Airline." In The Measurement of Tourism (IUOTO Seminar on Forecasting, Haslemere), 42-47, 1974.
———. "Including Citations Counting in the System of Actions of Scientific Papers." In First annual Meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 1976.
———. "Accumulation and Circulation of Scientific Credit. A Model for Guiding a Comprehensive Sociology of Science." Paper presented at the First International Conference on Social Studies of Science, Ithaca, NY, 1976.
Latour, Bruno, and Paolo Fabbri. "Pouvoir Et Devoir Dans Un Article De Science Exacte." Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, Février (1977): 81-95.
Latour, Bruno. "Le Dernier Des Capitalistes Sauvages. Interview D'un Biochemiste." In Conserva toire des Arts et Metiers. Paris, 1979.
Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar. Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts, Sage Library of Social Research. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1979.
Latour, Bruno. "Is It Possible to Reconstruct the Research Process? Sociology of a Brain Peptide." In The Social Process of Scientific Investigation, edited by K. D. Knorr, R. Krohn and R. Whitley. London: D. Reidel Publishing, 1980.
Callon, Michel, and Bruno Latour. "Unscrewing the Big Leviathan: How Actors Macro-Structure Reality and How Sociologists Help Them to Do So." In Advances in Social Theory and Methodology, edited by Karin Knorr-Cetina and Aaron Cicourel, 277-303. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1981.
Latour, Bruno. "Le Chercheur Aussi Est Un Negotiateur Ruse." Economie et Humanisme 262 (1981): 13-17.
Jagodzinskisigogneau, M., J. P. Courtial, and B. Latour. "How to Measure the Degree of Independence of a Research System." Scientometrics 4, no. 2 (1982): 119-33.
Latour, Bruno. "Review of the Manufacture of Knowledge." 4S Newsletter 7, no. 4 (1982): 40-46.
Latour, B. "Laboratory Life - Social Construction of Scientific Facts." Radical Science, no. 12
185
(1982): 137-40.
Latour, Bruno, ed. La Science Telle Qu'elle Se Fait. Paris: Pandore, 1982.
Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar. La ConstruccióN De Los Hechos CientíFicos. Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 1982.
Latour, Bruno. "Comment Redistribuer Le Grand Partage?" Revue de Synthèse 104, no. 110 (1983): 203-36.
———. "Visualization and Cognition." In Visualization and Cognition. Paris: Ecole Supérieure des Mines, 1983.
———. "Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Raise the World." In Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science, edited by Karin Knorr-Cetina and M. Mulkay, 258-75. London: SAGE Publications, 1983.
Latour, B., and F. Bastide. "On the Manufacture of Science + Structure and Rhetoric of the Scientific Text." Etudes Francaises 19, no. 2 (1983): 111-26.
Latour, Bruno, and Françoise Bastide. "Essai De Science-Fabrication." Études Françaises 19 (1983): 111-33.
Latour, Bruno. "Where Did You Put the Black-Box Opener?" EASST Newsletter 3, no. August (1984): 17-21.
———. Les Microbes: Guerre Et Paix; Suivi De Irrèductions. Paris: Editions A. M. Mètailié, 1984.
———. "Rationality and Relativism - Hollis,M." Isis 76, no. 282 (1985): 241-42.
———. "D'o'i Vient La Force D'un Argument?" Protee (1985): 5-9.
Latour, Bruno, and Jocelyn De Noblet, eds. Les Vues De L'esprit: Visualisation Et Connaissance Scientifique. Vol. 14, Culture Technique. Paris: Centre de Recherche sur la Culture Technique, 1985.
Latour, Bruno. "The Power of Associations." In Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge, edited by John Law, 261-77. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986.
———. "Visualisation and Cognition: Thinking with Eyes and Hands." In Knowledge and Society: Studies in the Sociology of Culture Past and Present, edited by H. Kuklick, 1-40: Jai Press, 1986.
Latour, B. "Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science - a Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory - Lynch,M." Social Studies of Science 16, no. 3 (1986): 541-48.
Latour, Bruno, and Françoise Bastide. "Writing Science: Fact and Fiction." In Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology, edited by Michel Callon, John Law and A. Rip,
186
51-66. London: Macmillan, 1986.
Latour, Bruno, and Mickès Coutouzis. "Le Village Solaire De Frango-Castello: Pour Une Ethnographie Des Techniques Modernes." L'Année sociologique 36 (1986): 113-68.
Latour, Bruno, and Shirley Strum. "Human Social Origins. Oh, Please, Tell Us Another Origins Story!" Journal of Biological and Social Structure 9 (1986): 169-87.
Bowker, G., and B. Latour. "A Booming Discipline Short of Discipline - (Social) Studies of Science in France." Social Studies of Science 17, no. 4 (1987): 715-48.
Latour, Bruno. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987.
———. Science at Work. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987.
Latour, Bruno, and Shirley Strum. "The Meanings of Social: From Baboons to Humans." Information sur les Sciences Socíales/Social Science Information 26 (1987): 783-802.
Strum, S. S., and B. Latour. "Redefining the Social Link - from Baboons to Humans." Social Science Information Sur Les Sciences Sociales 26, no. 4 (1987): 783-802.
Latour, Bruno. "The Politics of Explanation: An Alternative." In Knowledge and Reflexivity, New Frontiers in the Sociology of Knowledge, edited by Steve Woolgar, 155-77. London: Sage, 1988.
———. Enquête Sur Les Régimes D'énonciation. Paris: Ecole des Mines (mimeo), 1988.
———. "Comments on the Sociology of Knowledge About Child-Abuse." Nous 22, no. 1 (1988): 67-69.
———. "Opening One Eye, While Closing the Other... A Note on Some Religious Paintings." In Picturing Power: Visual Depictions and Social Relations, edited by G. Fyfe and John Law. London: Routledge, 1988.
———. "Le Grand Partage." Revue du MAUSS 1, no. 3 (1988): 27-64.
———. "Mixing Humans and Non-Humans Together: The Sociology of a Door-Closer." Social Problems 35 (1988): 298-310.
Latour, B. "A Relativistic Account of Einstein Relativity." Social Studies of Science 18, no. 1 (1988): 3-44.
Latour, Bruno. "The Prince for Machines as Well for Machinations." In Technology and Social Process, edited by B. Elliot, 20-43. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1988.
———. "Clothing the Naked Truth." In Dismantling Truth: Reality in the Post-Modern World, edited by H. Lawson and L. Appignasesi, 101-26. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1989.
187
———. "Pasteur Et Pouchet: Hétérogenèse De L'histoire Des Sciences." In Eléments D'histoire Des Sciences, edited by Michel Serres, 423-45. Paris: Bordas, 1989.
———. "Joliot: L'histoire Et La Physique Mêlés." In Eléments D'histoire Des Sciences, edited by Michel Serres, 493-513. Paris: Bordas, 1989.
———. "Reassessing the Micro/Macro Divide in Technology Studies: The Case of Aramis in France and Personal Rapid Transit in America." In Keynote address to the conference Technological Choices: American and European Experiences. Bloomington, IN, 1990.
———. "Drawing Things Together." In Representation in Scientific Practice, edited by Michael Lynch and Steve Woolgar, 19-68. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990.
———. "The Force and Reason of Experiment." In Experimental Inquiries, Historical, Philosophical and Social Studies of Experimentation in Science, edited by Homer Le Grand, 48-79. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1990.
Latour, B. "Postmodern - No, Simply Amodern - Steps Towards an Anthropology of Science." Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 21, no. 1 (1990): 145-71.
Latour, Bruno. "Quand Les Anges Deviennent De Bien Mauvais Messagers." Terrain 14, no. mars (1990): 76-91.
———. "Inscrire Dans La Nature Des Choses Ou La Clef Berlinoise." Alliage 6 (1991): 4-16.
———. "Technology Is Society Made Durable." In A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology, and Domination, edited by John Law, 101-31. New York: Routledge, 1991.
Latour, B. "The Impact of Science Studies on Political-Philosophy." Science Technology & Human Values 16, no. 1 (1991): 3-19.
Latour, Bruno, and Michel Callon. La Science Telle Qu'elle Se Fait. Paris: La Découverte, 1991.
Latour, Bruno, Cécile Schwarz, and Florian Charvolin. "Crise Des Environnements: Defis Aux Sciences Humnaines." Futur anterieur (1991): 28-56.
Callon, Michel, and Bruno Latour. "Don't Throw the Baby out with the Bath School! A Reply to Collins and Yearley"." In Science as Practice and Culture, edited by A. Pickering, 343-68. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.
Latour, Bruno. "Where Are the Missing Masses? The Sociology of a Few Mundane Artifacts." In Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, edited by Wiebe Bijker and John Law, 225-58. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1992.
Latour, B. "Sociotechnical Graphs and Cognitive Maps - a Reply." Social Studies of Science 22, no. 1 (1992): 91-95.
Latour, B., P. Mauguin, and G. Teil. "A Note on Sociotechnical Graphs." Social Studies of
188
Science 22, no. 1 (1992): 33-57.
Latour, Bruno. "Messenger Talks." In Working Paper No. 9. Lund: Institute of Economic Research 1993.
———. We Have Never Been Modern. Translated by Catherine Porter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993.
———. La Clef De Berlin Et Autres Leçons D'un Amateur De Sciences. Paris: La Découverte, 1993.
———. "Le 'Pédofil' De Boa Vista Ou La Référence Scientifique." In La Clef De Berlin Et Autres Leçons D'un Amateur De Sciences. Paris: La Découverte, 1993.
———. "Oliver Sacks's Awakenings: Reshaping Clinical Discourse " Configurations 1, no. 2 (1993): 229-45.
———. "Voyeur or Observer? Enlightenment Thoughts on the Dilemmas of Display " Configurations 1, no. 1 (1993): 95-128.
———. "Where Are the Missing Masses? Sociology of a Few Mundane Artifacts." In Constructing Networks and Systems, edited by Wiebe Bijker and John Law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993.
———. "The Enlightenment without the Critique: A Word on Michel Serres’s Philosophy." In Contemporary French Philosophy, edited by A Phillips Griffiths, 83-97. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
———. "Review: Some Scholars' Babies Are Other Scholars' Bathwater." Contemporary Sociology 22, no. 4 (1993): 487-89.
———. "On Technical Mediation: The Messenger Lectures on the Evolution of Civilization." In Institute of Economic Research: Working Papers Series: Cornell University, 1993.
———. "Arrachement Ou Attachement H La Nature." Ecologie politique, no. 5 (1993): 15-26.
Latour, B. "Acceptance." Science Technology & Human Values 18, no. 3 (1993): 384-88.
Latour, Bruno. "Ethnography of a ‘High-Tech’ Case: About Aramis." In Technological Choices: Transformation in Material Culture since the Neolithic, edited by P. Lemonnier, 372-98. London and New York: Routledge, 1993.
———. "Foreward: The Flat-Earthers of Social Theory." In Accounting and Science: Natural Inquiry and Commercial Reason, edited by Michael Power, xi-xvi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Latour, B. "Pragmatogonies - a Mythical Account of How Humans and Nonhumans Swap Properties." American Behavioral Scientist 37, no. 6 (1994): 791-808.
189
Latour, Bruno. "Whitehead's Theory of Agency and How It May Help Social Theory and Science Study." In Conference of the Society for Social Studies of Science. New Orleans, LA, 1994.
———. "On Technical Mediation: Philsophy, Sociology, and Geneaology." Common Knowledge 3, no. 2 (1994): 29-64.
———. "Esquisse Díun Parlement Des Choses." Écologie Politique 10 (1994): 97-115.
———. "Les Objects Ont-Ils Une Historie? Rencontre De Pasteur Et De Whitehead Dans Un Bain D'acide Lactoque." In L'effect Whiteead, edited by I. Stengers, 197-217. Paris: Vrin, 1994.
Latour, B. "Sociology without Object - Notes on Interobjectivity." Sociologie Du Travail 36, no. 4 (1994): 587-607.
Latour, Bruno, and P. Lemonnier, eds. De La Préhistoire Aux Missiles Balistiques. L'intelligence Sociale Des Techniques. Paris: Editions La découverte, 1994.
Johnson, Jim a.k.a. Bruno Latour. "Mixing Humans and Nonhumans Together: The Sociology of a Door-Closer." In Ecologies of Knowledge: Work and Politics in Science and Technology. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1995.
Latour, Bruno. "Social Theory and the Study of Computerized Work Sites." In Information Technology and Changes in Organizational Work, edited by W. J. Orlinokowski and Geoff Walsham, 295-307. London: Chapman and Hall, 1995.
———. "The 'Pedofil' of Boa Vista-a Photo-Philosophical Montage." Common Knowledge 4, no. 1 (1995): 145-87.
———. "Moderniser Ou ÉCologiser ? À La Recherche De La 'SeptièMe' Cité." Écologie Politique, no. 13 (1995): 5-27.
———. "Joliot: History and Physics Mixed Together." In A History of Scientific Thought, edited by Michel Serres. Oxford: Blackwell, 1995.
Latour, B. "Who Speaks for Science." Sciences-New York 35, no. 2 (1995): 6-7.
Latour, Bruno, and J.-P. Le Bourhis. Donnez-Moi De La Bonne Politique Et Je Vous Donnerai De La Bonne Eau... Paris: Centre de Sociologie de l’ Innovation, Ecole Nationale Superieure des Mines de Paris, 1995.
Latour, Bruno, and Michel Serres. Conversations on Science, Culture, and Time. Translated by Roxanne Lapidus. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1995.
Latour, Bruno. "Que Peuvent Apporter L'histoire Et La Sociologie Des Sciences Aux Sciences De Gestion?" Paper presented at the Actes des 13e" journees nationales des IAE, Toulouse, 1996.
190
Latour, B. "On Actor-Network Theory." Soziale Welt 47, no. 4 (1996): 369-81.
Latour, Bruno. "Not the Question." Anhropology Newsletter 37, no. 3 (1996): 1-5.
———. Aramis, or the Love of Technology. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996.
———. Der Berliner SchlüSsel: Erkundungen Eines Liebhabers Der Wissenschaften. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1996.
———. "Que Peuvent Apporter L'histoire Et La Sociologie Des Sciences Aux Sciences De Gestion?" In Conference at the 13th Journées Nationales des IAE. Toulouse: University of Toulouse, 1996.
———. "Petite Réflexion Sur Le Culte Moderne Des Dieux Faitiches." Paris: Ed. Synthélabo, 1996.
———. "Do Scientific Objects Have a History? Pasteur and Whitehead in a Bath of Lactic Acid." Common Knowledge 5 (1996): 76-91.
———. "On Interobjectivity." Mind, Culture, and Activity: An International Journal 3 (1996): 228-45.
———. "Ces Réseaux Que La Raison Ignore: Laboratories, Bibliothèques, Collections." In Le Pouvoir Des Bibliothques: La Mémoire Des Libres En Occident, edited by M. Baratin and C. Jacob. Paris: Albin Michel, 1996.
Callon, Michel, and Bruno Latour. "’Tu Ne Calculeras Pas’ Ou Comment Symétriser Le Don Et Le Capital." La Revue de MAUSS semestrielle 9, no. Semester 1 (1997): 45-70.
Latour, Bruno. "On Actor-Network Theory: A Few Clarifications." In "Actor-Network and After" Workshop, 1997.
———. "Suivi D’expéRimentation Collective: Prise En Compte Et DéFinitions – Responsabilité." Annales des Mines (1997).
———. "Trains of Thought: Piaget, Formalism, and the Fifth Dimension." Common Knowledge 6 (1997): 170-70.
———. "Socrates' and Callicles' Settlement--or, the Invention of the Impossible Body Politic." Configurations 5, no. 2 (1997): 189-240.
———. "Foreword." In Stengers' Shibboleth Power and Invention; Situating Science, vii-xx. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997.
Latour, B. "A Few Steps toward an Anthropology of the Iconoclastic Gesture." Science in Context 10, no. 1 (1997): 63-83.
Latour, Bruno, and Finn Olsen. "Interview." Philsophia 3, no. 4 (1997): 267-87.
191
Latour, Bruno. Artefaktens åTerkomst. Stockholm: Nerenius & Santérus, 1998.
———. "VisualizacióN Y CognicióN: Pensando Con Los Ojos Y Con Las Manos." La balsa de la medusa 45-6 (1998): 82.
———. "Ein Ding Ist Ein Thing. A Philosophical Platform for a Left European Party." Concepts and Transformation 3, no. 1/2 (1998): 97-112.
———. "Virtual Society: The Social Science of Electronic Technologies." In CRICT 10th Anniversary Conference: Brunel University, 1998.
———. "To Modernize or Ecologise? That Is the Question." In Remaking Reality, edited by Bruce Braun and Noel Castree, 227. London and New York: Routledge, 1998.
———. Artefaktens Återkomst [the Return of the Artifact]. Häftad: Neremius & Santérus Förlag, 1998.
———. "From the World of Science to the World of Research?" Science 280, no. 5361 (1998): 208-09.
———. "Comments During the Seminar 'Sociology of Translation in Organization Theory'." Gothenburg, 1998.
———. "Behind the Masks." In Down from the Shimmering Sky: Masks of the Northwest Coast, edited by Peter Macnair, Robert Joseph and Bruce Grenville, 18-35. Vancouver, 1998.
———. "Über Technische Vermittlung." In Technik Und Sozialtheorie, edited by W. Rammert, 29-82. Frankfurt am Main: Campus, 1998.
———. "Thought Experiments in Social Science: From the Social Contract to Virtual Society." In first Virtual Society? annual public lecture: Brunel University, 1998.
Latour, B. "Media, Technology and Society - a History, from the Telegraph to the Internet." Tls-the Times Literary Supplement, no. 4970 (1998): 5-5.
Latour, Bruno. "On Recalling Ant." In Actor-Network Theory and After, edited by John Law and John Hassard, 15-25. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 1999.
———. "Factures/Fractures: From the Concept of Network to That of Attachment." Anthropology and Aesthetics 36 (1999): 20-31.
———. Pandora's Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.
———. "One More Turn after the Social Turn..." In The Science Studies Reader, edited by Mario Biagoli, 276-89. New York: Routledge, 1999.
———. "Ein Ding Ist Ein Thing – a Philosophical Platform for a Left (European) Party." Soundings 12 (1999): 12-25.
192
Latour, B. "For David Bloor ... And Beyond: A Reply to David Bloor's 'Anti-Latour'." Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 30A, no. 1 (1999): 113-29.
Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar. "A Social Constructivist Field Study." In Scientific Inquiry: Readings in the Philosophy of Science, edited by Robert Klee. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Latour, Bruno. "On the Partial Existence of Existing and Non-Existing Objects." In Biographies of Scientific Objects, edited by Lorraine Daston. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
———. "When Things Strike Back: A Possible Contribution of 'Science Studies' to the Social Sciences." British Journal of Sociology 51, no. 1 (2000): 107-23.
———. "Factures/Fractures. De La Notion De Réseau À Celle D’attachement." In Ce Qui Nous Relie, edited by A. Micoud and M Peroni, 189-208. Éds de l’Aube: La Tour d’Aigues, 2000.
———. "Du Principe De Précaution Au Principe Du Bon Gouvernement : Vers De Nouvelles Règles De La Méthode Expérimentale." Études (2000): 393-94.
———. "The Berlin Key or How to Do Words with Things." In Matter, Materiality, and Modern Culture, edited by Paul Graves-Brown, 10-21. New York: Routledge, 2000.
———. "A Well-Articulated Primatology: Reflections of a Fellow-Traveller." In Primate Encounters: Models of Science, Gender, and Society, edited by S. C. Strum and L. M. Fedigan, 358-81. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
———. "La Fin Des Moyens." Réseaux 100 (2000): 41-58.
———. "What Rules of Methods for the New Scientific Experiments." In 13th Darmstadt Colloquium, 2001.
———. L'espoir De Pandore: Pour Une Version Rèaliste De L'activitè Scientifique. Translated by Didier Gille. Paris: La Découverte, 2001.
———. "'Thou Shalt Not Take the Lord's Name in Vain'—Being a Sort of Sermon on the Hesitations of Religious Speech." Anthropology and Aesthetics 39 (2001): 215-34.
———. "A Sociology without Objects? Remarks to Inter-Objectivity." Berliner Journal Fur Soziologie 11, no. 2 (2001): 237-+.
———. "Good and Bad Science: The Stengers-Desprest Falsification Principle." In Bodies on Trial, edited by M. Akrich and M. Berg. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2001.
———. "Progress or Entanglement? Two Models for the Long Term Evolution of Human Civilization." In Challenges of Civilization in the 21st Century, edited by H. Tien and C. Lo, 311-34. Taiwan: Institute for National Policy Research, 2001.
193
———. "Le Métier De Chercheur, Regard D’un Anthropologue." INRA Editions, Collection Sciences en Questions, 2nd ed. (2001).
———. "What Rules of Method for the New Socio-Scientific Experiments?": Darmstadt Colloquium, 2001.
———. Pasteur: Guerre Et Paix Des Microbes: La dÈcouverte, 2001.
———. "Nouvelles Régles De La Méthode Scientifique?" Projet 268 (2001): 91-100.
———. "Réponses Aux Objections Concernant: Politiques De La Nature." Revue du MAUSS 17 (2001): 137-52.
Bruno, Latour, and Noor Ashraf. "The Science Wars: A Dialogue." Common Knowledge 8, no. 1 (2002): 71-79.
Latour, Bruno. "Cosmopolitiques I. La Nature Níest Plus Ce Quíelle Ètait." La Tour d'Aigues, l'Aube, 2002.
———. "Petite Philosophie De L’énonciation." In Eloqui De Senso. Dialoghi Semiotici Per Paolo Fabbri, Orizzonti, Compiti E Dialoghi Della Semiotica. Saggi Per Paolo Fabbri, edited by P. Basso and L. Corrain, 41-94. Milano: Costa & Nolan, 2002.
———. "Gabriel Tarde and the End of the Social." In The End of the Social. New Bearings in History and the Social Sciences, edited by P. Joyce, 117-32. London: Routledge, 2002.
———. Jubiler Ou Les Tourments De La Parole Religieuse. Paris: Les Empêcheurs-Le Seuil, 2002.
———. "The Costly Ghastly Kitchen." In The Laboratory Revolution in Medicine, edited by Andrew Cunningham and Perry Williams, 295-303. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
———. "Morality and Technology: The End of the Means." Theory, Culture and Society 19, no. 5/6 (2002): 257-60.
———. "Si L’on Parlait Un Peu Politique?" Politix 15, no. 58 (2002): 143-65.
———. "Another Take on the Science and Religion Debate." In Santa Barbara for the Templeton series on Science, Religion and Human Experience, 2002.
———. War of the Worlds: What About Peace? Chicago: Prickly Paradigm, 2002.
Latour, Bruno, and Peter Weibel, eds. Iconoclash. Beyond the Image Wars in Science, Religion and Art. Karisruhe, Germany: MIT Press and ZKM, 2002.
Latour, Bruno. "Atmosphère, Atmosphère." In The Weather Project, 29-41. London: Catalogue of the Tate Modern Installation, 2003.
194
———. "The Promises of Constructivism." In Chasing Technoscience: Matrix for Materiality, edited by D. Idhe and E. Selinger, 27-46. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2003.
———. "What If We Talked Politics a Little?" Contemporary Political Theory 2 (2003): 151.
———. "Do You Believe in Reality? News from the Trenches of the Science Wars." In Philosophy and Technology: The Technological Condition. An Anthology, edited by R. C. Scharff and V. Dusek, 126-37. Oxford: Blackwell, 2003.
Latour, B. "Is Re-Modernization Occurring - and If So, How to Prove It? A Commentary on Ulrich Beck." Theory Culture & Society 20, no. 2 (2003): 35-+.
Latour, Bruno. "Scientific Objects and Legal Objectivity." In Anthropology and the Construction of the Social: Making Persons and Things, edited by A. Pottage and M. Mundy, 73-114. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
———. "How to Talk About the Body? The Normative Dimension of Science Studies." Body & Society 10, no. 2-3 (2004): 205-29.
———. "Whose Cosmos, Which Cosmopolitics? Comments on the Peace Terms of Ulrich Beck." Common Knowledge 10, no. 3 (2004): 450-62.
———. "Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern." Critical Inquiry 30, no. 2 (2004): 225-48.
———. Politics of Nature. How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. Translated by Catherine Porter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004.
———. "Which Politics for Which Artifacts?" Domus 871, no. June (2004).
———. "Politics of Time, Politics of Space." Domus 876, no. December (2004).
———. "Plenty of Blogs but No Globe." Domus 869, no. April (2004).
———. "Never Too Late to Read Tarde." Domus 874, no. October (2004).
———. "Air-Condition Our New Political Fate." Domus 868, no. March (2004).
———. "The Last Critique." Harper's Magazine, 2004, 15-20.
———. "Sur La Pratique Des Théoriciens." In Savoirs Théoriques Et Savoirs D'action, edited by B. M. Barbier, 131-46. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 2004.
———. "On Using Ant for Studying Information Systems: A (Somewhat) Socratic Dialogue." In The Social Study of Information and Communication Technology, edited by C. Avgerou, C. Ciborra and F. Land, 61-76. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Latour, Bruno, and Emilie Hermant. "Paris: Invisible City." http://www.ensmp.fr/~latour/virtual/paris/english/frames.html.
195
Latour, Bruno. "Tapping Lightly on Koolhaas's Architecture with a Blind Person's Cane." Architecture D Aujourd Hui 361 (2005): 70-79.
———. "Thinking with Whitehead: A Free and Wild Creation of Concepts." Boundary 2-an International Journal of Literature and Culture 32, no. 1 (2005): 223-37.
———. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory, Clarendon Lectures in Management Studies. New York: Oxford University Press, USA, 2005.
———. "There Is No Terrestrial Globe." In Cosmograms, edited by Melik Ohanian and Jean-Cristophe Royoux. New York and Berlin: Lukas and Sternberg, 2005.
———. "From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik: An Introduction." In MAKING THINGS PUBLIC: Atmospheres of Democracy, edited by ZKM. Berlin: MIT Press, 2005.
———. "'Thou Shall Not Freeze-Frame', or, How Not to Misunderstand the Science and Religion Debate." In Science, Religion, and the Human Experience, edited by Jim Proctor, 27-48. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Latour, Bruno, and Dominique Linhardt. L'objet De La Sécurité Routière. Produire De Nouvelles Connaissances. De L'assemblage À L'assemblée. Paris: Predit, 2005.
Callon, Michel, and Bruno Latour. "Die Demontage Des Groben Leviathans: Wie Akteure Die Makrostruktur Des Realität Bestimmen Und Soziologen Ihnen Dabei Helfen." In Anthology: Ein Einf¸Hrendes Handbuch Zur Akteur-Netzwerk-Theorie, edited by A. Belliger, 75-101. Bielefeld: Transcript, 2006.
Latour, Bruno. Refaire De La Sociologie. Paris: La Découverte, 2006.
———. "Air." In Sensorium: Embodied Experience, Technology, and Contemporary Art, edited by C. A. Jones, 105-07. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006.
Latour, Bruno, and Pasquale Gagliardi, eds. Les Atmosphères De La Politique. Paris: Les empêcheurs de penser en rond, 2006.
Latour, Bruno. "A Plea for Earthly Sciences." In Keynote lecture for the annual meeting of the British Sociological Association. East London, 2007.
———. "The Recall of Modernity: Anthropological Approaches." Critical Studies Review 13, no. 1 (2007): 11-30.
———. Le Dialogue Des Cultures, Actes Des Rencontres Inaugurales Du Musée Du Quai Branly, Babel. Paris: Actes Sud, 2007.
———. Eine Neue Soziologie Für Eine Neue Gesellschaft. Einführung in Die Akteur-Netzwerk-Theorie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 2007.
———. "Making the Res Public (Interview Done by Tomas Sanchez-Criado." Ephemera:
196
Theory and Politics of Organization 7, no. 2 (2007): 364-71.
———. "A Textbook Case Revisited: Knowledge as Mode of Existence." In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by E. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, Michael Lynch and J. Wajcman, 83-112. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007.
———. "Can We Get Our Materialism Back, Please?" Isis 98, no. 1 (2007): 138-42.
Latour, B. "Turning around Politics: A Note on Gerard De Vries' Paper." Social Studies of Science 37, no. 5 (2007): 811-20.
———. "We Are All Reactionaries Today." Re-public, 2007.
———. "The Shaping of Deduction in Greek Mathematics: A Study in Cognitive History." Social Studies of Science 38, no. 3 (2008): 441-59.
Latour, Bruno. "What Is the Style of Matters of Concern?" In Spinoza Lecture Series, Department of Philosophy, University of Amsterdam. Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 2008.
Latour, Bruno, and V. Lépinay. L’économie, Science Des Intérêts Passionnés. Paris: La Découverte, 2008.
Vargas, E. V., Bruno Latour, B. Karsenti, F. Ait-Touati, and L. Salmon. "The Debate between Tarde and Durkheim." Environment and Planning D-Society & Space 26, no. 5 (2008): 761-77.
Latour, Bruno. "Perspectivism: 'Type' or 'Bomb'?" Anthropology Today 25, no. 2 (2009): 1-2.
———. "It's Development, Stupid! Or: How to Modernize Modernization." In Postenvironmentalism, edited by Jim Proctor. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009.
———. "Will Non-Humans Be Saved? An Argument in Ecotheology." Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 15, no. 3 (2009): 459-75.
———. On the Modern Cult of Factish Gods. Edited by Barbara Herrnstein Smith and E. Roy Weintraub, Science and Cultural Theory. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010.
———. The Making of Law: An Ethnography of the Conseil D’état. Translated by Marina Brilman and Alain Pottage. Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2010.
197
APPENDIX D: John Law’s Works Included in Analysis
Akrich, Madeleine, and John Law. "On Customers and Costs: A Story from Public Sector Science." In Accounting and Science: Natural Inquiry and Commercial Reason, edited by Mike Power, 195-218. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Barnes, Barry, and John Law. "Areas of Ignorance in Normal Science: A Note on Mulkay's ‘Three Models of Scientific Development." The Sociological Review 24 (1976): 115-24.
———. "Whatever Should Be Done with Indexical Expressions?" Theory and Society 3, no. 2 (1976): 223-37.
Benschop, Ruth, and John Law. "Representation, Distribution and Ontological Politics." In Labour of Division. Keele University: Keele University Centre for Social Theory and Technology, 1995.
———. "Resisting Pictures: Representation, Distribution and Ontological Politics." In Ideas of Difference: Social Spaces and the Labour of Division, edited by Kevin Hetherington and Rolland Munro, 156-82. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 1997.
Bijker, Wiebe, and John Law. Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992.
Callon, Michel, and John Law. "On Interests and Their Transformation: Enrolment and Counter-Enrolment." Social Studies of Science 12, no. 4 (1982): 615-25.
———. "La Protohistoire D'un Laboratoire." In La Science Et Ses Réseaux, edited by Michel Callon, 67-116. Paris: Editions de la Decouverte and Council of Europe, 1989.
———. "On the Construction of Sociotechnical Networks: Content and Context Revisited." Knowledge and Society 9 (1989): 57-83.
———. "Agency and the Hybrid Collectif." South Atlantic Quarterly 94 (1995): 481-507.
———. "After the Individual in Society: Lessons on Collectivity from Science, Technology and Society." Canadian Journal of Sociology 22, no. 2 (1997): 11.
———. "On Qualculation, Agency, and Otherness." Society and Space 23, no. 5 (2005): 717-33.
Callon, Michel, John Law, and Annemarie Mol. "Absent Presence: Localities, Globalities and Methods." Society and Space 22, no. Special Issue (2004).
198
Callon, Michel, John Law, and Arie Rip. Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology: Sociology of Science in the Real World. London: Macmillan, 1986.
Courtial, Jean-Pierre, and John Law. "A Co-Word Study of Artificial Intelligence." Social Studies of Science 19, no. 2 (1989): 301-11.
Fyfe, Gordon, and John Law. Picturing Power: Visual Depiction and Social Relations, Sociological Review Monograph. London: Routledge, 1988.
Hassard, John, John Law, and Nick Lee. "Preface." Organization 6, no. 3 (1999): 387.
Hetherington, Kevin, and John Law. "Guest Editorial." Society and Space 18, no. 2 (2000): 127-32.
———. "Materialities, Globalities, Spatialities." In Knowledge, Space, Economy, edited by John Bryson, Peter Daniels, Nick Henry and Jane Pollard, 34-49. London: Routledge, 2000.
Law, John. "The Development of Specialties in Science: The Case of X-Ray Protein Crystallography." Social Studies of Science 3, no. 3 (1973): 275-303.
———. "Theories and Methods in the Sociology of Science: An Interpretive Approach." Social Science Information 13 (1974): 163-72.
———. "Is Epistemology Redundant? A Sociological View." Philosophy of the Social Sciences 5, no. 3 (1975): 317-37.
———. "The Development of Specialties in Science: The Case of X-Ray Crystallography." In New Perspectives in the Emergence of Scientific Disciplines, edited by G. Lemaine, et al. Paris: Mouton, 1976.
———. "Prophecy Failed (for the Actors)!: A Note On'recovering Relativity'." Social Studies of Science 7, no. 3 (1977): 367-72.
———. "Fragmentation and Investment in Sedimentology." Social Studies of Science 10, no. 1 (1980): 1-22.
———. "Enrolement Et Contre-Enrolement: Les Luttes Pour La Publication D'un Article Scientifique." Social Science Information 22 (1983): 237-51.
———. "How Much of Society Can the Sociologist Digest at One Sitting? The 'Macro' and the 'Micro' Revisited for the Case of Fast Food." Studies in Symbolic Interaction 5 (1984): 171-96.
———. "International Workshop on New Developments in the Social Studies of Technology." 4S Review 2 (1984): 9-13.
———. "A Durkheimian Analysis of Scientific Knowledge: The Case of J.A. Udden's Particle Size Analysis." Knowledge and Society 5 (1984): 85-112.
199
———. "Sur La Tactique Du Controle Social: Une Introduction à La théOrie De L'acteur-RéSeau." In La Legitimité Scientifique, Cahiers Science, Technologie, SociéTé, 106-26. Paris: C.N.R.S., 1984.
———. "A Propos De Mots Et Des Autres AlliéS." Culture Technique 14 (1985): 35-50.
———, ed. Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge?, Sociological Review Monograph. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986.
———. "The Heterogeneity of Texts." In Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology, edited by Michel Callon, John Law and Arie Rip, 67-83. London: Macmillan, 1986.
———. "Power, Discretion and Strategy." In Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge?, edited by John Law, 165-91. London: Routledge, 1986.
———. "On Power and Its Tactics: A View from the Sociology of Science." The Sociological Review 34, no. 1 (1986): 1-37.
———. "Technology and Heterogeneous Engineering: The Case Portuguese Expansion." In The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, edited by Wiebe Bijker, Thomas Hughes and Trevor Pinch, 111-34. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987.
———. "On the Social Explanation of Technical Change: The Case of the Portuguese Maritime Expansion." Technology and Culture 28, no. 2 (1987): 227-52.
———. "The Structure of Sociotechnical Engineering - a Review of the New Sociology of Technology." The Sociological Review 35, no. 2 (1987): 404-25.
———. "The Anatomy of a Socio-Technical Struggle: The Design of the Tsr2." In Technology and Social Process, edited by Brian Elliott, 44-69. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1988.
———. "Power, Discretion and Strategy." In A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, edited by John Law, 165-91. London: Routlege, 1991.
———, ed. A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination. Vol. 38, Sociological Review Monograph. London: Routledge, 1991.
———. "Theory and Narrative in the History of Technology: Response." Technology and Culture 32 (1991): 377-84.
———. "Notes on the Theory of the Actor-Network: Ordering, Strategy and Heterogeneity." Systemic Practice and Action Research 5, no. 4 (1992): 379-93.
———. "The Olympus 320 Engine: A Case Study in Design, Development, and Organizational Control." Technology and Culture 33, no. 3 (1992): 409-40.
200
———. Modernity, Myth and Materialism. Oxford: Blackwell, 1993.
———. Organizing Modernity. Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell, 1994.
———. "Organization, Narrative and Strategy." In Towards a New Theory of Organizations, edited by John Hassard and Martin Parker, 248-68. London: Routledge, 1994.
———. "Organizing Accountabilities: Ontology and the Mode of Accounting." In Accountability: Power, Ethos and the Technologies of Managing, edited by Jan Mouritsen and Rolland Munro, 283-306. London: International Thompson Business Press, 1996.
———. "Traduction/Trahison: Notes on Ant." In TMV Working Paper. Oslo: University of Oslo, 1997.
———. "Machinic Pleasures and Interpellations." In Machines, Agency and Desire, edited by Brita Brenna, John Law and Ingunn Moser, 23-45. Oslo: TMV Report Series, 1998.
———. "On the Subject of the Object: Narrative, Technology, and Interpellation." Configurations 8, no. 1 (2000): 1-29.
———. "Transitivities." Society and Space 18, no. 2 (2000): 133-48.
———. "Comment on Suchman, and Gherardi and Nicolini: Knowing as Displacing." Organization 7, no. 2 (2000): 349-54.
———. "Notes on the Theory of the Actor-Network: Ordering, Strategy and Heterogeneity." In Organizational Studies: Critical Perspectives, edited by Warwick Organizational Behaviour Staff, 853-68. London: Routledge, 2000.
———. Aircraft Stories: Decentering the Object in Technoscience. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2002.
———. "Objects and Spaces." Theory, Culture & Society 19, no. 5-6 (2002): 91-105.
———. "Economics as Interference." In Cultural Economy, edited by Paul du Gay and Michael Pryke, 23-40. London and Beverly Hills: Sage, 2002.
———. After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. New York: Routledge, 2004.
———. "And If the Global Were Small and Non-Coherent? Method, Complexity and the Baroque." Society and Space 22 (2004): 13-26.
———. "Disaster in Agriculture: Or Foot and Mouth Mobilities." Environment and Planning A 38, no. 2 (2006): 227-39.
———. "Monster, Maschinen Und Soziotechnische Beziehungen." In Anthology: Ein EinfüRendes Handbuch Zur Akteur-Netzwerk-Theorie, edited by Andréa Belliger and David J. Krieger, 343-67. Verlag: Bielefeld, 2006.
201
———. "Making a Mess with Method." In The Sage Handbook of Social Science Methodology, edited by William Outhwaite and Stephen P. Turner, 595-606. Beverly Hills and London: Sage, 2007.
———. "Networks, Relations, Cyborgs: On the Social Study of Technology." In Visualizing the Invisible: Towards an Urban Space, edited by Stephen Read and Camilo Pinilla. Amsterdam: Techne Press, 2007.
———. "Pinboards and Books: Learning, Materiality and Juxtaposition." In Education and Technology: Critical Perspectives, Possible Futures, edited by David Kritt and Lucien T. Winegar, 125-50. Maryland: Lanham, 2007.
———. "Actor-Network Theory and Material Semiotics." In The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, 3rd Edition, edited by Bryan S. Turner, 141-58. Oxford: Blackwell, 2008.
———. "Practising Nature and Culture: An Essay for Ted Benton." In Nature, Social Relations and Human Needs: Essays in Honour of Ted Benton, edited by Sandra Moog and Rob Shields, 65-82. London: Palgrave, 2008.
———. "On Sociology and Sts." The Sociological Review 56, no. 4 (2008): 623-49.
———. "Culling, Catastrophe and Collectivity." Distinktion 16 (2008): 61-76.
———. "Sts, Veterinary Care, and Farming." In Care in Practice: On Tinkering in Clinics, Homes and Farms, edited by Annemarie Mol, Ingunn Moser and Jeannette Pols, 57-69. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag, 2010.
Law, John, and Madeleine Akrich. "On Customers and Costs: A Story from Public Sector Science." Science in Context 7, no. 3 (1994): 539-61.
Law, John, Serge Bauin, Jean-Pierre Courtial, and John Whittaker. "Policy and the Mapping of Scientific Change: A Co-Word Analysis of Research into Environmental Acidification." Scientometrics 14, no. 3 (1988): 251-64.
Law, John, and Michel Callon. "Engineering and Sociology in a Military Aircraft Project: A Network Analysis of Technological Change." Social problems 35, no. 3 (1988): 284-97.
Law, John, and David French. "Normative and Interpretive Sociologies of Science'." Sociological Review 22 (1974): 581-95.
Law, John, and John Hassard, eds. Actor Network Theory and After. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 1999.
Law, John, and Kevin Hetherington. "Materialities, Spatialities, Globalities." In The Spaces of Postmodernity, edited by Michael J. Dear and Steven Fusty, 34. Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002.
Law, John, and Peter Lodge. "Structure as Process and Environmental Constraint: A Note on
202
Ethnomethodology." Theory and Society 5, no. 3 (1978): 373-86.
———. Science for Social Scientists. London: Macmillan, 1984.
Law, John, and Annemarie Mol. "Notes on Materiality and Sociality." Sociological Review 43, no. 2 (1995): 274-94.
———. "Metrics and Fluids: Notes on Otherness." In Organised Worlds: Explorations in Technology, Organisation and Modernity, edited by Robert Chia, 20-38. London: Routledge, 1998.
———, eds. Complexities: Social Studies of Knowledge Practices. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2002.
———. "Local Entanglements or Utopian Moves: An Inquiry into Train Accidents." In Organisation and Utopia, edited by Martin Parker, 82-105. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002.
———. "Globalisation in Practice: On the Politics of Boiling Pigswill." Geoforum 39, no. 1 (2008): 133-43.
———. "The Actor-Enacted: Cumbrian Sheep in 2001." In Material Agency: Towards a Non-Anthropocentric Approach, edited by Lambros Malafouris and Carl Knappett, 55-77. New York: Springer, 2008.
Law, John, and Ingunn Moser. "Managing, Subjectivities and Desires." Concepts & Transformation: International Journal of Action Research and Organizational Renewal 4, no. 3 (1999): 249-79.
Law, John, and Vicky Singleton. "Performing Technology's Stories: On Social Constructivism, Performance, and Performativity." Technology and Culture 41, no. 4 (2000): 765-75.
———. "Allegory and Its Others." In Knowing in Organizations: A Practice Based Approach, edited by D Nicolini, S. Gherardi and D. Yanow, 225-54. New York: M. E. Sharpe, 2003.
———. "Object Lessons." Organization 12, no. 3 (2005): 331-55.
———. "A Further Species of Trouble?" In From Mayhem to Meaning: The Cultural Meaning of the 2001 Outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease in the Uk, edited by Martin Doering and Brigitte Nerlich, 229-42. Manchester, 2009.
Law, John, and John Urry. "Enacting the Social." Economy and Society 33, no. 3 (2004): 390-410.
Law, John, and John Whittaker. "Mapping Acidification Research: A Test of the Co-Word Method." Scientometrics 23, no. 3 (1992): 417-61.
Law, John, and Rob Williams. "Beyond the Bounds of Credibility." Fundamenta Scientiae 1 (1980): 295-315.
203
———. "Putting Facts Together: A Study of Scientific Persuasion." Social Studies of Science 12, no. 4 (1982): 535-58.
Lynch, Michael, and John Law. "Lists, Field Guides, and the Descriptive Organization of Seeing: Birdwatching as an Exemplary Observational Activity." In Representation in Scientific Practice, edited by Michael Lynch and Steve Woolgar, 266-99. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990.
Mol, A. "Situating Technoscience: An Inquiry into Spatialities." Environment and planning. Part D, society and space 19 (2001): 609-21.
Mol, Annemarie, and John Law. "Regions, Networks and Fluids: Anaemia and Social Topology." Social Studies of Science 24, no. 4 (1994): 641-71.
———. "Regions, Networks and Fluids: Anaemia and Social Topology." In Comparative Science and Technology Policy, edited by Sheila Jasanoff. London: Edward Elgar, 1997.
———. "Boundary Variations: An Introduction." Society and Space 23, no. 5 (2005): 637-42.
Smith, Andrew, Catherine Wild, and John Law. "The Barrow-in-Furness Legionnaires' Outbreak: Qualitative Study of the Hospital Response and the Role of the Major Incident Plan." Emergency Medicine Journal 22, no. 4 (2005): 251-55.
204
APPENDIX E: Semi-Structured Interview Questions
Role of ANT in their own research and how they first heard of it - Can you tell me some about your research and where ANT fits (and does not fit) into it? - When you have used ANT, which authors and works have you used most? - When did you first get introduced to ANT?
o What were your first impressions? o How have your impressions changes since then?
What they think of ANT as a method - What do you think ANT can offer to research generally?
o What do you think ANT can offer a researcher in your field? o What do you think ANT can offer you as a researcher?
- Are there any areas that you think ANT cannot address or where it is not useful? o Why?
- Do you have any particular author you think is best for your uses? o Which work(s) have you been most affected by?
§ Why? - Do you find that ANT is hard or easy (or neither) to integrate with other theoretical
approaches? o Why do you think this might be so?
ANT in their subject area(s) - Are any STS approaches generally used in your field of study?
o IF YES: Where and how are they used? o IF NO: Why do you think this might be so?
- Do you know of any other people in your field who are using ANT? o IF YES: How have they used it?
§ How did you find out about other works citing ANT? • Does which journal in which it is published make a difference to how
you regard ANT’s legitimacy as a research tool? § If YES to ANT and NO to STS: Why do you think ANT is used and other
STS approaches are not used? • Is there something particular to ANT that makes it able to bridge
disciplinary boundaries? o IF NO: How does that change whether you use or do not use ANT?
- How do you think ANT is perceived in your field of study? o Do you think that it is perceived as legitimate or illegitimate?
205
o If you published a paper that used ANT, do you think that would affect how people perceived your work?
§ Do you think using ANT in your work would be risky? Do you think that it is radical enough to carry with it some amount of risk?
§ Do you think that it would affect the journals in which your paper could be accepted?
§ What about conferences? - Do you think ANT could offer anything to your field of study?
o How so?
ANT in their institution - Do you know of other people at Brown who are using ANT?
o IF YES: Are you close with them? § What about within your department at Brown?
• IF YES: Do you know them well? o IF YES/NO: Have you ever worked with them?
o IF NO: Do you know why this might be? § How do you think ANT would be accepted at Brown?
- How do you think using radical methodological methods, such as those proposed by ANT, would affect tenure and personal prestige at Brown?
o Does that make you more or less likely to use it? - How do you think being at Brown affected your getting to know about the theory?
ANT and Funding - How do you think a grant proposal that employed ANT as a methodological springboard
would be taken? o Do you think that you would be able to get funds from Brown to do this research? o Do you think that the other places you usually apply for funds would be willing to
give you money to conduct ANT research?
How they Cite Theories and Methods in General - Stepping aside from ANT for a second, can you explain to me how you usually decide to
incorporate new theories and methods into your research? o How do you usually find out about various approaches? o How do you decide which authors to cite?
§ What factors do you take into account in that decision? • Prestige/name recognition? • Citation counts on google scholar? • Which journals it was cited in? • Word of mouth? • How recent the work was published? • Relevance to the specific research question you are asking?