Talk:Actor–network theory

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 13 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yl1264. Peer reviewers: Rimbaud1230, HebaTea.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

What about "post-ANT" or "after-ANT"
Is there anyone who feels capable of adding more information regarding the concepts or scholars that are associated with "after-ANT" or "post-ANT"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornelius-heimstaedt (talk • contribs) 15:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Started cleanup of the article
The article is still way too centered around the concepts in ANT without explanations of the general idea. I removed much of the concept-specific stuff. Added references to relevant sections and restructured the text a bit. Still, everything under other central concepts is a bit superfluous in my opinion, since the different authors connected with ANT use different concepts.--Psyphilis (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Deleted the link to Law's clarifications on ANT as the Wayback machine is no longer storing. User:Sugarcoma 19:02, 16 November, 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 00:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

To do
Incorporate all references into one list (the ref tag list)

Re-write other central concepts into a more fluent text

Expand the section on human and non human actors. Since this is the novelty of ANT and this is more of a general introduction, this probably should be a central part of the article.

Make the use of ANT or Actor-Network Theory more coherent.--Psyphilis (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, the critique-section needs ref. --Psyphilis (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

wow this is so jargon laden it is a total piece of crap article. no wonder people don't take this sociology of science seriously and think it is bunk. Sincerely, bruno latourwow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.225.159 (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment 1: agency is not well defined either in this article or the separate article.

Comment 2: regarding the following sentence at the end of the intro: "Broadly speaking, it is a constructivist approach in that it avoids essentialist explanations of events or innovations (for example, explaining a successful theory by saying it is 'true' and the others are 'false')."

Does that mean ANT does not think that theories that are true are more more likely to be successful?

[reply to comment 2>>> yes that is what it means. truth is seen as a label for settled controversies, but not a cause of the controversies settlement. this is made very clear in Science in Action.]

[user:RedHouse18]

The following sentence should be struck: "A successful actor network is achieved when innovators succeed in building a network that is capable of resisting external attack from human as well as non-human actors."

The above statement is erroneous. There is NO EXTERNALITY!! Rather, an actor network is always contested by other actants. An actor-network only transforms and mutates from within. As soon as an 'externality' engages with the network, it becomes part of it, an ally (alliances are formed in very complexly nuanced ways, even when actants don't appear to be cooperative). The struggle is over the appearance of turning the 'in potentia' power of the network towards an individual actor's stated goals. This is done through translation, which is the root of ANT's historical development.

{Kind of agree that the sentence should be struck... but there does seem to be stuff outside of networks... at least for Latour... 'plasma' and such (ie. in Reassembling the Social)... also Law's talk of network space as just one among many spatialities (fluid being another... etc etc... not agreeing with it but it seems to be out there...} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.195.86.40 (talk) 13:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

To do

 * Add references to text Bryan 12:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The following sentence (and not only that) should be deleted: "Like other perspectives in social science, ANT draws on a range of different philosophical resources, some of which are relatively esoteric." It reveals a tendency which is leaving scientifical ground and documentation.

Is this characterization accurate? - Jmchen 00:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Just come to this page from a google search after seeing this theory in a social science paper. Have to say I think you need to improve the laymans definition as it doesn;t make a word of sense to me

-Seconding the comment above. This is fairly incomprehensible to an outsider and is not appropriately presented for a Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.18.87 (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yet another agreement. There are very few examples and the whole thing seems to be written in sociological jargon. --69.196.189.169 (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is an introductory article on Actor-Network Theory written by someone who writes in a clear style. It examines ANT in relation to a number of other theories. The article is: Dolwick, Jim S. 2009. The 'Social' and Beyond: Introducing Actor-Network Theory. Here is the link: http://www.springerlink.com/content/0j537m2362328336/ -Interestingly, it's in the Journal of Maritime Archaeology --Ralph De (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

remove dead links: ^ John Law (1992). "Notes on the Theory of the Actor Network: Ordering, Strategy, and Heterogeneity." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.89.1.19 (talk) 10:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Actor–network theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150524023006/http://www.excursions-journal.org.uk/index.php/excursions/article/download/100/134 to http://www.excursions-journal.org.uk/index.php/excursions/article/download/100/134
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714210351/http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/sociology/research/publications/papers/latour-recalling-ant.pdf to http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/sociology/research/publications/papers/latour-recalling-ant.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Lead revision
I am trying to clean up the lead, as it is in many ways the most important part of the article and is the first (and last) encounter to ANT that many people have. Please edit to make clearer, but I think it still needs some work. FULBERT (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Internal Links
As I am sure you are aware, there is a concerted effort by a number of feminist Wikipedians to "address" gender balance issue by (what might be perceived as) an over emphasis on female academics and their relevance/importance/contribution to specific themes and innovations. The hyperlinks to two lesser figures (Annemarie Mol and Helen Verran) rather than the key innovators on ANT (as determined by factors such as the originators of the concept, as agreed on in the article itself) suggests a clear example of this. If there is no specific reason for linking to these two figures as opposed to Latour, Callon, Law etc. I would suggest deleting the links. Wikipedia is not, of course apolitical, but this seems to be a type of manipulation against the spirt of Wikipedia. 92.41.22.159 (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/a-feminist-edit-a-thon-seeks-to-reshape-wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.22.159 (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * See gender bias on Wikipedia. It's a well-documented, well-researched part of the systemic bias of Wikipedia. That there are two women linked in the see also section does not mean the article has been tagged by a feminist cabal. It means they're relevant to ANT and aren't even mentioned in the article. See also does not link to articles that are already linked, so it would be against Wikipedia guidelines to link to Latour, Callon, Law, etc. If the cabal has been "addressing" things here, they haven't done a very good job, as there is exactly one woman mentioned in the whole of the actual article (Haraway), and then these two linked below it. My interest in ANT hasn't brought me far beyond the core works on the subject, so I don't know what the significant perspectives are since then, but if these two people are noted scholars/practitioners of ANT (even if they are not Latour himself), would the article not be better by including them? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review for Communication Theory Class -Actor-Network Theory
Background and context need to be developed further, and many paragraphs need references. Also, an extra segment could be added that discusses the role of actor-network theory in understanding the implementation of information technology in corporations, and communication technology would be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HebaTea (talk • contribs) 17:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Communication Theory and Frameworks Fall 2022
The overall outline and structure of the page is pretty good. They are arranged in a way that flows well and is easy to follow: starting with a description of the key concepts, its application in other disciplines and practice, and its contributions and criticisms. However, I agree with Pixie233's feedback regarding contributions: it needs citations to support the four contributions. I think this section could also benefit from a more meaningful discussion of the first contribution ("nonhuman actors can be considered as a condition in human social activities") and why nonhuman actors serving as conditions is significant. Having examples for each of these contributions would also be great. One text I could think of that could serve as an example for one of them (nonhumans as members of moral and political associations) is Langdon Winners "Do Artifacts Have Politics?" (1980). --Rcc90 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcc90 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The content of the page is very well organized, with short paragraphs and subtitles that give clear ideas of what would be talked about in the section. Besides basic concepts, there are also sections on recent development in specific disciplines. However, I would still consider extending or merging some sub-sections. First is "Human and non-human actors" listed under "Actor/Actant".The section standalone does not provide enough information about the Human and non-human actors. Therefore it would be better to either just delete "Human and non-human actors" and continue writing on "Actor/Actant", or extend the section by providing more sources. Second is the section "Contributions" under "Impact of ANT". The paragraph is lacking any citations, and it primarily explains the nonhuman actor. Moreover, "Impact of ANT" essentially delivers similar messages to "ANT in practice". Therefore, I would recommend deleting the contribution section and moving the content up to "Human and non-human actors". With only criticism left, make it the main section by replacing "Impact of ANT". Another small thing I would edit is the citation style of Reassembling the Social (2005) under "Translation". Probably we just need to use the"cite" function so no need to keep the year in the parentheses. ---Pixie233 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixie233 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

— Assignment last updated by Turnj (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)