Abstract
This paper considers the proposition that actor-network theory (ANT)might be adopted within a broader critical paradigm to conduct empirical studies. The paper outlines the main tenets of the two theories, with the critical perspective primarily represented by Foucault.The aim is not to provide an extensive discussion of critical theory and ANT but to focus on their approach to the nature, scope, and level of empirical studies, particularly in their treatment of micro/macro analysis.The paper concludes that the differences are less significant than it may appear at first and that some of ANT’s ideas are close to Foucault’s position.However, ANT focuses on actors and their actions as they are performed in a particular time and place and does not appear to be concerned to what extent they may be historically conditioned. Thus, ANT on its own, in the view of the author, might not offer sufficient explanations as to why the actors under study take particular actions and why some actors are excluded or marginalized from the innovation process, e.g. from the development and implementation of an IS. For these reasons this paper suggests a critical research agenda enriched by ANT insights.
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allen, D., and Ellis, D. “Beyond Paradigm Closure in Information Systems Research: Theoretical Possibilities for Pluralism,” in R.D. Galliers, S. Carlsson, C. Loebbecke, C. Murphy, H.R. Hansen, and R. O’Callaghan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5 th European Conference on Information Systems, Cork, Ireland: Cork Publishing Ltd., 1997, pp. 737–759.
Alvesson, M., and Deetz, S. Doing Critical Management Research, London: Sage Publications, 2000.
Alvesson, M., and Skoldberg, K. Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research, London: Sage Publications, 2000.
Alvesson, M., and Willmott, H. (Eds.) Critical Management Studies, London: Sage Publications, 1992.
Asaro, P.M. “Transforming Society by Transforming Technology: The Science and Politics in Participatory Design,” paper presented at the Critical Management Studies Conference, Manchester, 1999 (available online at http://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/ejrot/cmsconference/documents/Information%20Tech/Pd_cms.pdf).
Avgerou, C. “Information Systems: What Sort of Science Is it?,” Omega (28), 2000, pp. 567–579.
Avgerou, C. Information Systems and Organizational Diversity: The Articulation of Local and Global Rationalities, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Brooke, C. “Critical Perspectives on Information Systems: An Impression of the Research Land-scape,” Journal of Information Technology (17:4), 2002a, pp. 271–283.
Brooke, C. “What Does it Mean to Be ‘Critical’ in IS Research,” Journal of Information Technology (17), 2002b, pp. 49–57.
Burrell, G., and Morgan, G. Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis: Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life, Aldershot, England: Gower, 1985.
Callon, M. “Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay,” in J. Law (Ed.), Power, Action and Belief, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986, pp. 196–233.
Callon, M., and Latour, B. “Unscrewing the Big Leviathan,” in K.D. Knorr-Cetina and A.V. Cicourel (Eds.), Advances in Social Theory and Methodology: Towards an Integration of Micro-and Macro-Sociologies, Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981, pp. 277–303.
Cecez-Kecmanovic, D.; Janson, M.; and Brown, A. “The Rationality Framework for a Critical Study of Information Systems,” Journal of Information Technology (17:4), 2002, pp. 215–227.
Cordella, A., and Shaikh, M. “Actor Network Theory and After: What’s New for IS Research?,” Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Information Systems, Naples, Italy, 2003.
Doolin, B. “Information Technology as Disciplinary Technology: Being Critical Interpretive Research on Information Systems,” Journal of Information Technology (13), 1998, pp. 301–311.
Doolin, B., and Lowe, A. “To Reveal Is to Critique: Actor-Network Theory and Performativity in Critical Information Systems Research,” Journal of Information Technology (17:2), 2002, pp. 69–78.
Ellul, J. The Technological Society, New York: Vintage Books, 1964.
Feenberg, A. “The Bias of Technology,” in R. Pippin, A. Feenberg, and C. B. Webel (Eds.), Marcuse: Critical Theory and the Promise of Utopia, London: MacMillan Education, 1988, pp. 225–256.
Feenberg, A. Critical Theory of Technology, New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.
Feenberg, A. “Modernity Theory and Technology Studies: Reflections on Bridging the Gap,” paper presented at the Conference on Technology and Modernity, University of Twente, 1999 (available online at http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/foculty/feenberg/twente.html).
Fitzgerald, B., and Howcroft, D. “Towards Dissolution of the IS Research Debate: From Polarization to Polarity,” Journal of Information Technology (13:4), 1998, pp. 313–326.
Foucault, M. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, Harmondsworth, England: Penguin, 1979.
Foucault, M. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–77, Brighton, England: Harvest Press, 1980.
Foucault, M. “What Is Enlightenment?” in P. Rabinow (Ed.), The Foucault Reader, London: Penguin Books, 1984, pp. 32–50.
Guba, E. G., and Lincoln, Y. S. “Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research,” in N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, London: Sage Publications, 1994, pp. 105–117.
Habermas, J. Communication and the Evolution of Society, Boston: Beacon Press, 1979.
Habermas, J. Knowledge and Human Interests, Boston: Beacon Press, 1972.
Held, D. Introduction to Critical Theory: Horkheimer to Habermas, Oxford: Hutchinson & Co, 1980.
Hirschheim, R., and Klein, H.K. “Four Paradigms of Information Systems Development,” Communications of the ACM (32:10), 1989, pp. 1199–1216.
Hirschheim, R., and Klein, H. K. “Realizing Emancipatory Principles in Information Systems Development: The Case for ETHICS,” MIS Quarterly (18:1), March 1994, pp. 83–109.
Horkheimer, M. “Postscript,” in Critical Theory: Selected Essays of Max Horkheimer, New York: Herder and Herder, 1972a, pp. 244–252.
Horkheimer, M. “Traditional and Critical Theory,” in Critical Theory: Selected Essays of Max Horkheimer, New York: Herder and Herder, 1972b, pp. 188–243.
Horkheimer, M., and Adorno, T. W. Dialectic of Enlightenment, New York: Herder and Herder, 1972 (originally published in 1944).
Howcroft, D., and Wilson, M. “Paradoxes of Participatory Design: The End-User Perspective,” paper presented at the Critical Management Studies Conference, Manchester, 1999 (avail-able online at http://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/ejrot/cmsconference/documents/Information%20Tech/Howcroft.pdf).
Jerald, W. The Hermeneutics of life History: Personal Achievement and History in Gadamer, Habermas, and Erikson, Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1990.
Jonsson, S. “Action Research,” in H.-E. Nissen, H. K. Klein, and R. Hirschheim (Eds.), Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions, Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1991, pp. 371–396.
Kallinikos, J. “Reopening the Black Box of Technology: Artifacts and Human Agency,” in L. Applegate, R. Galliers, and J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Information Systems, Barcelona, 2002, pp. 287–294.
Kincheloe, J. L., and McLaren, P. L. “Rethinking Critical Theory and Qualitative Research,” in N. K. Denzin and Y. S Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, London Sage Publications, 1994, pp. 138–157.
Knights, D., and Murray, F. “Markets, Managers and Messages: Managing Information Systems in Financial Services,” in B. P. Bloomfield, R. Coombs, D. Knights, and D. Littler (Eds.), Information Technology and Organizations: Strategies, Networks and Integration, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997, pp. 36–56.
Knorr-Cetina, K.D. “Introduction: The Micro-Sociological Challenge of Macro-Sociology: Towards a Reconstruction of Social Theory and Methodology,” in K. D. Knorr-Cetina and A. V. Cicourel (Eds.), Advances in Social Theory and Methodology: Toward an Integration of Micro-and Macro-Sociologies, Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981, pp. 1–47.
Latour, B. Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.
Latour, B. “On Using ANT for Studying Information Systems: A (Somewhat)Socratic Dialogue,” in C. Averou and C. Ciborra (Eds.), Social Study of ICT, Oxford: Oxford University Press, Oxford, Forthcoming.
Law, J. “Editor’s Introduction: Power/Knowledge and the Dissolution of the Sociology of Knowledge,” in J. Law (Ed.), Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986.
Lyytinen, K. “Information Systems and Critical Theory,” in M. Alvesson and H. Willmott (Eds.), Critical Management Studies, London: Sage Publications, 1992, pp. 159–180.
Lyytinen, K. J., and Klein, H. K. “The Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas as basis for a Theory of Information Systems,” in E. Mumford, R. Hirschheim, G. Fitzgerald, and A. T. Wood-Haper (Eds.), Research Methods in Information Systems, Amsterdam: North Holland, Amsterdam, 1985, pp. 219–236.
Marcuse, H. One-Dimensional Man, London: Sphere Books Ltd., 1970.
Markus, M. L., and Robey, D. “Information Technology and Organizational Change: Causal Structure in Theory and Research,” Management Science (34:5), 1988, pp. 583–598.
McAulay, L.; Doherty, N.; and Keval, N. “The Stakeholder Dimension in Information Systems Evaluation,” Journal of Information Technology (17:4), 2002, pp. 241–255.
McGrath, K. “ICTs Supporting Targetmania: How the UK Health Sector is Trying to Modernise,” in M. Korpela, R. Montealegre, and A. Poulymenakou (Eds.), Organizational Information Systems in the Context of Globalization, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003a, pp. 19–34.
McGrath, K. Organizational Culture and Information Systems Implementation: A Critical Perspective, Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Department of Information Systems, The London School of Economics, London, 2003b.
Mingers, J. “Combining IS Research Methods: Towards a Pluralist Methodology,” Information Systems Research (12:3), 2001, pp. 240–259.
Mitev, N. “Constructivist and Critical Approaches to an IS Failure Case Study: Symmetry, Translation and Power,” Working Paper Series, Information Systems Department, London School of Economics, 2003.
Monteiro, E. “Actor-Network Theory and Information Infrastructure,” in C. Ciborra (Ed.), Control to Drift, New York: Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 71–83.
Monteiro, E., and Hanseth, O. “Social Shaping of Information Infrastructure: On Being Specific About the Technology,” in W. J. Orlikowski, G. Walsham, M. R. Jones, and J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Information Technology and Changes in Organizational Work, London: Chapman & Hall, 1996, pp. 325–343.
Monteiro, E., and Sahay, S. “On the Life-Blood of Actants,” paper presented at the Latour’s Seminar, Tromsø, Norway, 2000 (available onine at http://www.idi.ntnu.no/~ericm/life.blood.htm).
Morrow, R. D., and Brown, D. D. Critical Theory and Methodology, London: Sage Publications, 1994.
Myers, M. D., and Young, L. W. “Hidden Agendas, Power and Managerial Assumptions in Information Systems Development: An Ethnographic Study,” Information Technology and People (10:3) 1997, pp. 224–240.
Ngwenyama, O. K. “The Critical Social Theory Approach to Information Systems: Problems and Challenges,” in H.-E. Nissen, H.K. Klein, and R. Hirschheim (Eds.), Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions, Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1991, pp. 267–280.
Oliver, D., and Romm, C. “Justifying Enterprise Resource Planning Adoption,” Journal of Information Technology (17:4), 2002, pp. 199–213.
Olssen, M. “Michel Foucault’ s Historical Materialism,” in M. Peters, W. Hope, J. Marshall, and S. Webster (Eds.), Critical Theory, Poststructuralism and the Social Context, Palmerston North, New Zealand: Dunmore Press, 1996, pp. 82–105.
Orlikowski, W. J. “The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations,” Organization Science (3:3), 1992, pp. 398–427.
Orlikowski, W. J., and Baroudi, J. J. “Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions,” Information Systems Research (2:1), 1991, pp. 1–28.
Orlikowski, W. J., and Iacono, C. S. “Desperately Seeking the ‘IT’ in IT Research—A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact,” Information Systems Research (12:2), 2001, pp. 121–134.
Rabinow, P. “Introduction,” in P. Rabinow (Ed.), The Foucault Reader, London: Penguin Books, 1984, pp. 3–29.
Radder, H. In and About the World: Philosophical Studies of Science and Technology, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1996.
Saravanamuthu, K., and Wood-Harper, A.T. “Developing Emancipatory Information Systems,” paper presented at (Re-)Defining Critical Research in Information Systems: An International Workshop, The University of Salford, 2001, pp. 91–109.
Stalder, F. “Beyond Constructivism: Towards a Realist Realism.A Review of Bruno Latour’s Pandora’s Hope,” The Information Society (16), 2000, pp. 245–247.
Walsham, G. “The Emergence of Interpretivism in IS Research,” Information Systems Research (6), 1995, pp. 376–394.
Walsham, G. “Actor-Network Theory and IS Research: Current Status and Future Prospects,” in A. S. Lee, J. Liebenau, and J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Information Systems and Qualitative Research, London: Chapman & Hall, 1997, pp. 466–480.
Waring, T. S. “The Challenge of Emancipation in Information Systems Implementation: A Case Study in an NHS Trust Hospital,” paper presented at the Critical Management Studies Conference, Manchester, 1999 (available online at http://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/ejrot/cmsconference/documents/Information%20Knowledge/Waring_Manchester.pdf).
Whitley, E. A. “Habermas and the Non-Humans: Towards a Critical Theory for the New Collective,” paper presented at the Critical Management Studies Conference, Manchester, 1999a (available online at http://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/ejrot/cmsconference/documents/Information%20Tech/Habermas%20and%20the%20non-humans.pdf).
Whitley, E. A. “Understanding Participation in Entrepreneurial Organizations: Some Hermeneutic Readings,” Journal of Information Technology (14:2), 1999b, pp. 193–202.
Williams, R., and Edge, D. “The Social Shaping of Technology,” Research Policy (25), 1996, pp. 865–899.
Wilson, F. A. “The Truth Is Out There: The Search for Emancipatory Principles in Information Systems Design,” Information Technology and People (10:3), 1997, pp. 187–204.
Winner, L. Autonomous Technology: Technics-Out-of-Control as a Theme in Political Thought, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1977.
Winner, L. “Upon Opening the Black Box of Technology and Finding it Empty: Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Technology,” Science, Technology and Human Values (18:3), 1993, pp. 362–378.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2004 Springer Science + Business Media, Inc.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Klecuń, E. (2004). Conducting Critical Research in Information Systems: Can Actor-Network Theory Help?. In: Kaplan, B., Truex, D.P., Wastell, D., Wood-Harper, A.T., DeGross, J.I. (eds) Information Systems Research. IFIP International Federation for Information Processing, vol 143. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-8095-6_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-8095-6_15
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-8094-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-8095-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive