Editing Actor–network theory (section)

==Background and context==
ANT was first developed at the [[Centre de Sociologie de l'Innovation]] (CSI) of the [[École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris]] in the early 1980s by staff ([[Michel Callon]], [[Madeleine Akrich]], [[Bruno Latour]]) and visitors (including [[John Law (sociologist)|John Law]]).<ref name=EncycANT /> The 1984 book co-authored by [[John Law (sociologist)|John Law]] and fellow-sociologist [[Peter Lodge (sociologist)|Peter Lodge]] (''Science for Social Scientists''; London: Macmillan Press Ltd.) is a good example of early explorations of how the growth and structure of knowledge could be analyzed and interpreted through the interactions of actors and networks.  Initially created in an attempt to understand processes of innovation and knowledge-creation in science and technology, the approach drew on existing work in [[Science and technology studies|STS]], on studies of [[large technical system|large technological systems]], and on a range of French intellectual resources including the semiotics of [[Algirdas Julien Greimas]], the writing of philosopher [[Michel Serres]], and the [[Annales School]] of history.

ANT appears to reflect many of the preoccupations of French [[post-structuralism]], and in particular a concern with non-foundational and multiple material-semiotic relations.<ref name=EncycANT /> At the same time, it was much more firmly embedded in English-language academic traditions than most post-structuralist-influenced approaches. Its grounding in (predominantly English) [[science and technology studies]] was reflected in an intense commitment to the development of theory through qualitative empirical case-studies. Its links with largely US-originated work on large technical systems were reflected in its willingness to analyse large scale technological developments in an even-handed manner to include political, organizational, legal, technical and scientific factors.

Many of the characteristic ANT tools (including the notions of translation, generalized symmetry and the "heterogeneous network"), together with a [[scientometric]] tool for mapping innovations in science and technology ("co-word analysis") were initially developed during the 1980s, predominantly in and around the CSI. The "state of the art" of ANT in the late 1980s is well-described in Latour's 1987 text, ''[[Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society|Science in Action]]''.<ref name=science>Latour, B. (1987). ''[[Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society]].'' Milton Keynes: Open University Press.</ref>

From about 1990 onwards, ANT started to become popular as a tool for analysis in a range of fields beyond STS. It was picked up and developed by authors in parts of [[organizational analysis]], [[informatics]], health studies, [[geography]], [[sociology]], [[anthropology]], [[archaeology]], [[Women's studies|feminist studies]], [[technical communication]], and [[economics]].

{{as of|2008}}, ANT is a widespread, if controversial, range of material-semiotic approaches for the analysis of heterogeneous relations. In part because of its popularity, it is interpreted and used in a wide range of alternative and sometimes incompatible ways. There is no orthodoxy in current ANT, and different authors use the approach in substantially different ways. Some authors talk of "after-ANT" to refer to "successor projects" blending together different problem-focuses with those of ANT.<ref>John Law and John Hassard (eds) (1999). ''Actor Network Theory and After'' (Oxford and Keele: Blackwell and the Sociological Review).</ref>