Editing Actor–network theory (section)

===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."