Abstract
Actor network theory (ANT) is one of the representative meta theories with discussing materiality in management studies. We reconsider the ANT, especially the concept of heterogeneity, which Orlikowski used when she tried to find out the material properties, and the concept of translation, which is the process of sha** heterogeneous networks. The Orlikowski's pursuit of finding specific properties of the object in the relations between societies and objects using the concept of “constitutive entanglement” invited criticism later, but this criticism is also a problem in describing the heterogeneity of ANT. Therefore, we confirm the direction in which ANT was originally aimed and point out problems in describing the heterogeneity. As a response to this problem, we discuss the valuation studies, which are recent research theme incorporating ANT. As an example, we describe the case of the external labor market in Japan, which is mediated by private employment services. Because of the longterm employment that is one of the Japanese employment systems, Japanese companies have internally developed firm specific capabilities that are difficult to calculate. However, the private employment services, which have expanded its scale since the deregulation in 1999, disentangle human (and its capability) that are a hybrid, make it calculable human resources, and have a function that makes human resources as job seekers, thus the constructing an external labor market in Japan.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
To be precise, it is translated as “human beings and inhuman beings,” terminology that includes not only material objects but also other nonhuman things. In order to clarify the subject of this article, we will focus on material objects as distinct from other nonhuman things.
- 2.
As will be discussed later, the meaning of “symmetry” here is to temporarily suspend the existence of human entities and materials having certain characteristics and thus treat both of them without distinction.
- 3.
The expression “network results” might be interpreted as meaning that the characteristics of an entity are influenced by the underlying relationship, but this is not exactly the case. Society and materials in ANT are, as I have repeatedly stated, regarded as networks themselves. It is the reason we are regarded as “society” and “substance” in ANT is that these networks are “blackboxing”.
References
Aoki, M. (1988). Information, incentives, and bargaining in the Japanese economy. Cambridge University Press.
Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education. Columbia University Press.
Çalışkan, K., & Callon, M. (2009). Economization, part 1: Shifting attention from the economy towards processes of economization. Economy and Society, 38(3), 369–398.
Çalışkan, K., & Callon, M. (2010). Economization, part 2: A research programme for the study of markets. Economy and Society, 39(1), 1–32.
Callon, M. (1998). Introduction: The embeddedness of economic markets in economics. In M. Callon (Ed.), The lows of markets (pp. 1–57). Blackwell.
Callon, M. (1999). Actor-network theory: The market test. In J. Law & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor network theory and after (pp. 181–195). Blackwell.
Callon, M., & Muniesa, F. (2005). Economic markets as calculative collective devices. Organization Studies, 28(8), 1229–1250.
Callon, M., Millo, Y., & Muniesa, F. (Eds.). (2007). Market devices. Blackwell.
Doganova, L. (2019). What is the value of ANT research into economic valuation devices? In A. Blok, I. Farias, & C. Robert (Eds.), The Routledge companion to actor-network theory (pp. 256–263). Routledge.
Doeringer, P. B., & Piore, M. J. (1971). Internal labor markets and manpower analysis. Heath.
Fourcade, M. (2011). Cents and sensibility: Economic valuation and the nature of ‘nature.’ American Journal of Sociology, 116(6), 1721–1777.
Hanseth, O., Aanestad, M., & Berg, M. (2004). Guest editor’s introduction: Actor-network theory and information systems. What’s so special. Information Technology and People, 17(2), 116–123.
Kokubu, K., Sawabe, N., & Matsushima, N. (Eds.). (2017). Keisan to keiei jissen: Keieigaku to kaikeigaku no kaikō, [Calculation and organizing practices: Connecting accounting research and organizational theory]. Yuhikaku. (in Japanese).
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford University Press.
Law, J. (1999). After ANT: Complexity, naming and topology. In J. Law & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor network theory and after (pp. 1–14). Blackwell.
Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (1999). The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of human capital allocation and development. Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 31–48.
MacKenzie, D. (2007). Is economics performative?: Option theory and the construction of derivatives markets. In D. MacKenzie, F. Muniesa, & L. Sui (Eds.), Do economists make markets? On the Performativity of Economics (pp. 54–86). Princeton University Press.
Matsushima, N. (1996). Kigyōka ni yoru honyaku senryaku: Akutā nettowāku riron ni okeru honyaku gainen no kakucyō [Translation strategy by entrepreneur: Extension of the concept of translation in actor-network theory]. In N. Ueno, & S. Dobashi (Eds.), Kagaku gijutsu jissen no fīrudowāku: Haiburiddo no Dezain [Fieldwork of science and technology practices: The design of hybrid] (pp. 110–127). Serica Syobo. (in Japanese).
Muniesa, F., Millo, Y., & Callon, M. (2007). An introduction to market devices. In M. Callon, Y. Millo, & F. Muniesa (Eds.), Market devices (pp. 1–12). Blackwell.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435–1448.
Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433–474.
Sayes, E. (2014). Actor-network theory and methodology: Just what does it mean to say that nonhumans have agency? Social Studies of Science, 44(1), 134–149.
Strathern, M. (1996). Cutting the network. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 2(3), 517–535.
Yatera, A. (2013). Keisan kūkan toshite no roudō shijō: Chūto saiyō ni okeru **zai syōkai katsuyō wo chūshin ni [Labor market as calculative space: Focus on private employment services in labor market]. Nihon Jōhō Keiei Gakkaishi [Journal of Information and Management], 33(4), 78–89. (in Japanese).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Yatera, A. (2022). Actor Network Theory and the Problem of Describing Heterogeneity. In: Materiality in Management Studies. SpringerBriefs in Economics(). Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8642-9_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8642-9_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-16-8641-2
Online ISBN: 978-981-16-8642-9
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)