Editing Actor–network theory (section)

== Criticism ==

Some critics<ref>Amsterdamska, O. (1990). 'Surely You're Joking, Mr Latour!'. Science, Technology, Human Values. Vol.15(4) pp.495-504.</ref> have argued that research based on ANT perspectives remains entirely descriptive and fails to provide explanations for social processes. ANT—like comparable social scientific methods—requires judgement calls from the researcher as to which actors are important within a network and which are not. Critics{{Who|date=July 2013}} argue that the importance of particular actors cannot be determined in the absence of "out-of-network" criteria, such as is a logically proven fact about deceptively coherent systems given [[Gödel's incompleteness theorems]]. Similarly, others{{Who|date=October 2014}} argue that actor-networks risk degenerating into endless chains of association ([[six degrees of separation]]—we are all networked to one another). Other research perspectives such as [[social constructionism]], [[social shaping of technology]], [[social network theory]], [[normalization process theory]], and [[diffusion of innovations]] theory are held to be important alternatives to ANT approaches.

===From STS itself and organizational studies===
Key early criticism came from other members of the STS community, in particular the "Epistemological Chicken" debate between Collins and Yearley with responses from Latour and Callon as well as Woolgar. In an article in ''Science as Practice and Culture'', sociologist [[Harry Collins]] and his co-writer [[Steven Yearley]] argue that the ANT approach is a step backwards towards the [[positivist]] and [[Scientific realism|realist]] positions held by early theory of science.<ref>{{citation | last1 = Collins | first1 = Harry M. | last2 = Yearley | first2 = Steven | author-link2 = Steven Yearley | contribution = Epistemological chicken | editor-last = Pickering | editor-first = Andrew | editor-link = Andrew Pickering | title = Science as practice and culture | pages = 301–327 | publisher = University of Chicago Press | location = Chicago | year = 1992 | isbn = 9780226668017 | postscript = .}}</ref> Collins and Yearley accused ANTs approach of collapsing into an endless relativist regress.<ref>Collins, H. M., & Yearley, S. (1992). Epistemological Chicken. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as Practice and Culture (pp. 301–326). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.</ref>

Whittle and [[organization studies]] professor [[André Spicer]] note that "ANT has also sought to move beyond deterministic models that trace organizational phenomena back to powerful individuals, social structures, hegemonic discourses or technological effects. Rather, ANT prefers to seek out complex patterns of causality rooted in connections between actors." They argue that ANT's ontological realism makes it "less well equipped for pursuing a critical account of organizations—that is, one which recognises the unfolding nature of reality, considers the limits of knowledge and seeks to challenge structures of domination."<ref>Andrea Whittle and André Spicer, 2008. Is actor network theory critique? ''Organization Studies'' 2008 29: 611</ref> This implies that ANT does not account for pre-existing structures, such as power, but rather sees these structures as emerging from the actions of actors within the network and their ability to align in pursuit of their interests. Accordingly, ANT can be seen as an attempt to re-introduce [[Whig history]] into [[science and technology studies]]; like the myth of the [[Heroic theory of invention and scientific development|heroic inventor]], ANT can be seen as an attempt to explain successful innovators by saying only that they were successful. Likewise, for organization studies, Whittle and Spicer assert that ANT is, "ill-suited to the task of developing political alternatives to the imaginaries of market managerialism."

===Human agency===

Actor–network theory insists on the capacity of [[Non human|nonhumans]] to be actors or participants in networks and systems. Critics including figures such as [[Langdon Winner]] maintain that such properties as [[intentionality]] fundamentally distinguish humans from animals or from "things" (see [[Activity Theory]]). ANT scholars  [<nowiki/>[[wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Unsupported attributions|who?]]] respond with the following arguments:

* They do not attribute intentionality and similar properties to [[Non human|nonhumans]].
* Their conception of [[Human agency|agency]] does not presuppose intentionality.
* They locate agency neither in human "subjects" nor in nonhuman "objects", but in [[heterogeneous]] associations of humans and nonhumans.

ANT has been criticized as amoral. [[Wiebe Bijker]] has responded to this criticism by stating that the amorality of ANT is not a necessity. Moral and political positions are possible, but one must first describe the network before taking up such positions. This position has been further explored by Stuart Shapiro who contrasts ANT with the history of ecology, and argues that research decisions are moral rather than methodological, but this moral dimension has been sidelined.<ref>Shapiro, S. (1997). Caught in a web: The implications of ecology for radical symmetry in STS. Social Epistemology, 11(1), 97-110. [[doi:10.1080/02691729708578832]]</ref>

===Misnaming===
In a workshop called "On Recalling ANT", Latour ''himself'' stated that there are four things wrong with actor-network theory: "actor", "network", "theory" and the hyphen.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/resources/sociology-online-papers/papers/latour-recalling-ant.pdf |title=Keynote Speech: On Recalling ANT |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140714210351/http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/sociology/research/publications/papers/latour-recalling-ant.pdf |archive-date=July 14, 2014 |url-status=live |website=Lancaster University |publisher=Department of Sociology}}</ref> In a later book, however, Latour reversed himself, accepting the wide use of the term, "''including'' the hyphen."<ref name="RtS"/>{{Rp|9}} He further remarked how he had been helpfully reminded that the ANT acronym "was perfectly fit for a blind, myopic, workaholic, trail-sniffing, and collective traveler"—qualitative hallmarks of actor-network [[epistemology]].<ref name="RtS" />