Differences Between Actor Network Theory And Social Construction Sociology Essay

Here are few differences between Actor Network Theory and Social construction of technology that I found from various analysts’ point of view.

To start with, I would like to jot down the basic difference between Actor network theory and the theory of social construction of technology. Actor network theory (ANT) considers both technical determinism and social determinism, i.e. it does not stick by the idea that technology shapes the society or the society shapes the technology (latour, Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory, 2005). Social Construction of technology (SCOT) theory follows the ideas that technology is emerged from the social interaction of social group, which can be called social determinism. (Klein, H. K. & Kleinman, D. L., 2002)

Both of these theories involve participants in process of shaping the network or in shaping the outcome, known as ‘Actors’. Actors involved in ANT are humans and non-humans which are treated equally as separation between the two are difficult, as it cannot be said who played the major role. (latour,1997). The actors involved in SCOT are the ‘Relevant Social group’ which includes people sharing the same interest in shaping the technological artifact (Bijker, Hughes, & Pinch, 1989). Actors in ANT need to be performing constantly to keep the network flowing without any lag or hick up. SCOT does not follow a strict principle on the performance of the actors or the groups. If a certain relevant social group’s involvement or influence is less than the other group, in that case it only brings in a few changes in the outcome of the technological artifact. (Klein, H. K. & Kleinman, D. L., 2002) Talking about the aim of these theories, ANT is more about how the networks are formed rather than why they are formed. It does not predict the outcome of the socio-technical artifact at any point. These entities are known as mediators where the input by the actors cannot predict the outcome; rather it multiplies or deletes the input/object passing through network known as ‘tokens or quasi objects’. (Wikipedia) Whereas SCOT illustrates how the social surrounding which include RSG and other actors give rise to a particular artifact. Right from the beginning the outcome is predicted or decided. It acts more like an intermediate unlike ANT. It does not really matter if there are changes that come through in the social surrounding while building the artifact, the previously assumed idea of the outcome would still remain the same. (Klein, H. K. & Kleinman, D. L., 2002)

Get Help With Your Essay

If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Find out more about our Essay Writing Service

If we study ANT carefully, the actors involved in it are not just objects but an association of other elements which self constitutes a network. To look like a single point actor, these elements are simplified or ‘Black boxed’. That means the network actors are open to new ideas and their contents can be reconsidered (Gidding, 1999). The idea of reconsidering the content does not exist in SCOT. It limits the influence of the RSG once the interpretive flexibility starts to gradually diminish. This causes it to reach the rhetorical closure, thus the alternative idea of a new design is eliminated. (Klein, H. K. & Kleinman, D. L., 2002)

‘Following the actor’, this method in ANT suggest that the actors set their framework and the limits of the network by themselves. Actors in ANT are able to make their presence ‘individually felt’ by the other actors (Tatnall & Burgess, 2002). As discussed earlier, actors can be thought of as a ‘black box’, which has many actors hiding one behind other. So basically all the actors can be found at one place or it can be said that all the actors form a single point actor and this effect is known as Punctualisation (latour, Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory, 2005). When the same method is compared to SCOT, actors are followed who are relevant to the technology and that may lead to another actor who is also relevant to that technology. The process is continued till no new actor’s pop-up. This causes the interpretation to come to a closure.

Both of these theories have a positive and a negative side of their own. The biggest drawback of SCOT is that it ignores the effect of the technology after it has come into existence by social determinism. The technological artifact might have been developed for a particular purpose. But it is hard to expect the end-users to use it the way it is suppose to be used. In that case, it means that the effect of the technology after is has come into existence from a social determinism method, is slowly shaping the society in its own way. That brings us back to technological determinism. (Klein, H. K. & Kleinman, D. L., 2002)

As we know RSG solves the technical problems, seeking solutions, etc. We do not know who decides the which group are relevant social group and with the same the social interest. It fails to include the groups that have no voice and also the groups that will be affected by the results of technological change and also the groups that have been stamped down and excluded (Prell, Christina, 2009).

It also fails to explain the circumstances where one of the relevant social groups seriously disagrees to either to the design or technological system or artifact, etc. There is no explanation on how the theory would handle the disagreements of the groups. Many critiques has pointed out on the same fault of theory that it portrays all the social groups on the same level or sharing equal authority or power. There is a slight fault with the interpretive flexibility once it reaches the closure. It does not look back for further interpretations in the future. (Hard, 1993)

Actor-network theory treats humans and non-humans equal. It has been argued by many critics that how can a non-human be assigned to be an agency. For example, a technology can only be identified because we differentiate it from human actors. Technologies do not speak for themselves nor do they exist outside of processes of human assumption. Analytically speaking there is no such non-human actor to be described by ANT. ANT assumes that all actors, which include both humans and non-humans, are equal within the network, and have the same power. This leaves no space for power instability is left. Thus the power struggles within the network. ANT case studies leads to a lot of useless descriptions that seem pointless. (Whittle & Spicer, 2005)

Another major drawback of ANT it gets very difficult to ‘follow the actors’ as the researcher would have to get into the depth of the topic for investigating a particular case without knowing where they will lead. As the actors are ‘black-boxed’, the researcher is following only one actor and would not know if it would open up further possible investigation. One of other weakness about ANT is that the actors, ANT requires both the actors to be performing constantly to keep the network flowing. Even if one fails, the whole system fails. (learning-theories, 2008)

Talking about the strength of SCOT, one of the plus point of SCOT is how it overcomes one problem by finding a better way to adopt the technology. For example. Bicycle. There was a lot of debate on the safety and the way it was built or looked. But then, the eventually they adopted it because of the fact that they were fast when it came to speed. They overlooked the problem by relating it to another better plus point to the technology. To think about it, end of the day we (humans) are the once who are going to use the technology. So doesn’t it make more sense that we shape the technology the way we want it? Based on our application we can shape the technology, SCOT is something that does exactly the same. Unlike ANT even if one if the actors fail to perform, the outcome of the system or the technological artifact does not fail. In that case that particular actor or the group will have less influence in the process of making the artifact. (Bijker, Hughes, & Pinch, 1989)

Actor-network theories main strength would be how it overcomes both social and technical determinism. This makes sense in a way because in a particular invention, it is hard to say who played the major role, humans or non-humans. For instance, let us take the example of how the laptop came into existence. If we have a look into it, the invention results from human and technology. The technical aspect of the laptop is achieved by the technical team which in-turn is influenced by the social background. Therefore, what seems to be social is partly technical and what seems to be technical is partly social. (latour, Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory, 2005)

‘Following the actors’ might have been criticized in the case of ANT but it has its own positive side too. When compared to SCOT, it does not have to approach each and every actor of the same revelant group. In ANT all the actors act as a single point actor which can be found in the ‘Black box’. (Gidding, 1999)