Actor-Network Theory

From its inception at the beginning of the 1980s, actor-network theory (ANT) has enjoyed considerable success in the social sciences; it is drawn upon in sociology, geography, organizational studies, political science, and cultural studies. One of the key dimensions of this is the fact that ANT is not—properly speaking—a theory; that is, it does not constitute a set of interlinked, conditional propositions that make predictions about states of the world. Rather, ANT is a malleable set of conceptual tools and methodological strategies that enable researchers to investigate and organize empirical materials and helps us understand the dynamics of actions involving key actors in issues of science and science policy. As such, it provides context for understanding patterns of communication in these areas. ANT's interest in the interaction between science, technology, and society should make it an attractive resource for science communication students and scholars.

A factor that has contributed to ANT's success was social scientists' perceived need to understand new forms of socioeconomic organization that emerged in the 1980s through 1990s, in which [Page 7]networks and flows—of money, information, knowledge, and so on—trespassed the territorial boundaries and forms of regulation of the nation-state. In this new economy, social scientists and policymakers recognized that research and innovation were of key importance. The problem was how to understand the role of knowledge in society: Was it the case that science and technology were “pushing” or propelling socioeconomic change, or was it that socioeconomic forces were “pulling” or demanding new ideas and inventions? To this, ANT provided a useful and interesting answer: the idea that social relationships and structures are in a constant and dynamic interaction with scientific knowledge and technological devices. It is this idea of a coproduction of science-technology and society—encapsulated in the notion of the sociotechnical—that makes ANT different from other approaches to understanding science in society. To be able to understand the significance of these ideas, it is necessary to review the intellectual context in which ANT took shape.