We develop two related Actor-Network Theory (ANT) arguments for organizational analysis. The first concerns research strategy and draws upon Latour's (1999) notion of definitional `sliding' to describe how ANT overcomes its analytical limitations by removing conditions that exclude the `other'. Through this discussion, we argue that, research-wise, ANT appears to be ontologically relativist, in permitting the world to be organized differentially, yet empirically realist in providing `theory-laden' descriptions of organization. Our second argument concerns institutional boundedness and flexibility, and suggests that ANT's ontological slipperiness may actually be of value for studies of organizational form. We outline how, under ANT, the analytical focus shifts from structural prescription to processual deconstruction, the associated political dimension concerning where and for whom boundaries are produced/consumed. Overall, we argue for organizational field research that avoids any obligation to impose and defend its own theoretical discriminations.
References
1.
Arthur, M. and Rousseau D. (1995) The Boundaryless Career. New York: Oxford University Press.
2.
Ashmore, M. (1989) The Reflexive Thesis: Wrighting the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
3.
Ashmore, M. , Woolfitt, R. and Harding, S. (1994) `Humans and Others, Agents and Things', American Behavioral Scientist37(6): 733-740.
4.
Askenas, R. , Ulrich, D., Jick, T. and Kerr, S. (1995) The Boundaryless Organisation. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
5.
Bauman, Z. (1987) Legislators and Interpreters: On Modernity, Postmodernity and Intellectuals. Cambridge: Polity.
6.
Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.
7.
Bonß, W. and Hartmann, H. (1985) `Konstruierte Gesellschaft, rationale Deutung. Zum Wirklichkeitscharakter soziologischer Diskurse', in W. Bonf and H. Hartmann (eds) Entzauberte Wissenschaft. Zur Relitavitat und Geltung soziologischer Forschung. Special Issue 3 of Soziale Welt. Gottingen.
8.
Burns, T. and Stalker, G. (1961) The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock.
9.
Callon, M. (1986) `Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay', in J. Law (ed.) Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge?London: Routledge.
10.
Callon, M. , ed. (1998) The Laws of the Markets. Oxford: Blackwell.
11.
Callon, M. , Law, J. and Rip, A. (1986) Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology: Sociology of Science in the Real World. London: Macmillan.
12.
Chia, R. (1996) `The Problem of Reflexivity in Organizational Research: Towards a Postmodern Science of Organization', Organization3(1): 31-59.
13.
Colville, I. , Waterman, R., and Weick, K. (1999) `Organizing and the Search for Excellence', Organization6(1): 129-148.
14.
Gadamer, H. (1975) Truth and Method. London: Sheed and Ward.
15.
Gergen, K. (1992) `Organisation Theory in the Postmodern Era', in M. Reed and M. Hughes (eds) Rethinking Organisation. London: Sage.
16.
Habermas, J. (1998) On the Pragmatics of Communication. London: Polity.
17.
Hampshire, S. (1959) Thought and Action. London: Chatto and Windus.
18.
Hanson, N. (1958) Patterns of Discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
Haraway, D. (1991) Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. London: Free Association Books.
20.
Hassard, J. (1993) `Postmodernism and Organisational Analysis: An Overview', in J. Hassard and M. Parker (eds) Postmodernism and Organisations. London: Sage.
21.
Kickert, W. (1993) `Autopoiesis and the Science of (Public) Administration: Essence, Sense and Nonsense', Organization Studies14(2): 261-278.
22.
Latour, B. (1988) The Pastueurization of France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23.
Latour, B. (1993) We Have Never Been Modern. Translated by C. Porter. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
24.
Latour, B. (1999) `On Recalling ANT', in J. Law and J. Hassard (eds) Actor Network Theory: and After. Oxford: Blackwell.
25.
Law, J. (1991) A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power Technology and Domination. London: Routledge.
26.
Law, J. (1994) Organising Modernity. Oxford: Blackwell.
27.
Lawrence, P. and Lorsch, J. (1967) Organization and Environment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28.
Lee, N. (1998) `Two Speeds: How are Real Stabilities Possible?', in R. Chia (ed.) Organized Worlds: Explorations in Technology and Organization with Robert Cooper. London: Routledge.
29.
Luhmann, N. (1986) `The Autopoiesis of Social Systems', in F. Geyer and J. Van den Zouwen (eds) Sociocybernetic Paradoxes. London: Sage.
30.
Maturana, H. (1981) `Autopoiesis', in M. Zeleny (ed.) Autopoiesis: A Theory of Living Organisation. New York: North Holland.
31.
Michael, M. (1996) Constructing Identities: The Social, The Non-Human and Change. London: Sage.
32.
Mol, A. (1999) `Ontological Politics: A Word and some Questions', in J. Law and J. Hassard (eds) Actor Network Theory: and After. Oxford: Blackwell.
33.
Mol, A. and Law, J. (1994) `Regions, Networks and Fluids: Anaemia and Social Topology', Social Studies of Science26: 641-671.
34.
Pugh, D. and Hickson, D. (1976) Organization Structure in its Context: The Aston Studies 1. Farnborough: Saxon House.
35.
Rosenau, P. (1992) Postmodernism and the Social Sciences: Insights, Inroads and Intrusions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
36.
Sayer, D. (1991) Capitalism and Modernity. London: Routledge.
37.
Schutz, A. (1967) The Phenomenology of the Social World. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
38.
Strathern, M. (1996) `Cutting the Network', Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute2: 517-535.
39.
Woolgar, S. (1988) Science: The Very Idea. Chichester: Ellis-Horwood.
40.
Wynne, B. (1996) `May the Sheep Safely Graze? A Reflexive View of the Expert/Lay Knowledge Divide', in S. Lash, B. Szerszynski and B. Wynne (eds) Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology. London: Sage.
