Actor-network theory (ANT) has contributed greatly to the development of science and technology studies. However, recent critiques appear to have left ANT in a gloomy theoretical black box. What is the likelihood of ANT exiting its current theoretical discontent? Is ANT worthy of salvation and on what grounds? Law argues that recent critiques stem from ANT’s development into a particular theoretical strategy. However, this article will argue that by focusing on strategy as messy and impure, ANT can be afforded the opportunity to shift from a fixed approach to an ambiguous and contingent strategy, well placed to carry on. The article achieves such an argument by first highlighting how ANT has contributed to a recent study of strategy in action; second, by outlining the strategic aspects of ANT; and third, by using the study of strategy in action as a means of engaging with ANT’s current theoretical discontent.
Ackoff, R.1981. Creating the corporate future—Plan or be planned for. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.
2.
Akrich, M., and B. Latour. 1992. A summary of a convenient vocabulary for the semiotics of human and nonhuman assemblies. In Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change, edited by W. Bijker and J. Law, 259-264. London: MIT Press.
3.
Ashmore, M.1989. The reflexive thesis: Writing sociology of scientific knowledge. London: University of Chicago Press.
4.
Bijker, W., T. Hughes, and T. Pinch. 1989. The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. London: MIT Press.
5.
Bijker, W., and J. Law, eds. 1992. Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change. London: MIT Press.
6.
Birkinshaw, J.2001. Why is knowledge management so difficult?Business Strategy Review12 (1): 11-18.
7.
Callon, M.1986. Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In Power, action and belief—A new sociology of knowledge, edited by J. Law.London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
8.
Chia, R., ed. 1998. Organized worlds: Explorations in technology and organization with Robert Cooper. London: Routledge.
9.
Chia, R.2001. Pronesis and the glance: Strategy formation in the blink of an eye. Exeter, UK: University of Exeter, Department of Management.
10.
Chia, R.2002. Entrepreneurial strategising: The tacit mode. Exeter, UK: University of Exeter, Department of Management.
11.
Corrall, S.1994. Strategic planning for library and information services. London: Aslib.
12.
Czarniawska, B., and H. Hopfl, eds. 2002. Casting the other: The production and maintenance of inequality in work organizations. London: Routledge.
13.
Czarniawska, B., and G. Sevon, eds. 1996. Translating organizational change. New York: de Gruyter.
14.
Czarniawska-Joerges, B.1992. Exploring complex organizations: A cultural perspective. London: Sage.
15.
Davy, K.1998. Information strategy and the modern utility—Building competitive advantage. London: Financial Times.
16.
Dearing, Ron. 1997. Higher education in the learning society. Norwich, UK: Crown Copyright.
17.
de Laet, M., and A. Mol. 2000. The Zimbabwe bush pump: Mechanics of a fluid technology. Social Studies of Science30 (2): 225-263.
18.
Fjelstad, O., and K. Haanaes. 2001. Strategy tradeoffs in the knowledge and network economy. Business Strategy Review12 (1): 1-10.
Goodman, R., and M. Lawless. 1994. Technology and strategy—Conceptual models and diagnostics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
21.
Grint, K., and S. Woolgar. 1997. The machine at work: Technology, work and organization. Cambridge, MA: Polity.
22.
Hassard, J., J. Law, and N. Lee. 1999. Preface. Organization6 (3): 387-390.
23.
Hetherington, K., and J. Law, eds. 2000. Special issue—After networks. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space18 (2): 127-132.
24.
Hinchliffe, S.1996. Technology, power and space—The means and ends of geographies of technology. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space14:659-682.
25.
Joint Information Systems Committee. 1998. Information strategies: An executive briefing. http://www.jisc.ac.uk.
26.
Joint Information Systems Committee. 2004. Mission statement. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/.
27.
Latour, B.1988. The pasteurization of France. Trans. A. Sheridan and J. Law. London: Harvard University Press.
28.
Latour, B.1990. Drawing things together. In Representation in scientific practice, edited by M. Lynch and S. Woolgar.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29.
Latour, B.1992. Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artefacts. In Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change, edited by W. Bijker and J. Law.London: MIT Press.
30.
Latour, B.1999. On recalling ANT. In Actor-network theory and after, edited by J. Law, J. and J. Hassard, 15-25. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
31.
Latour, B., and S. Woolgar. 1986. Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
32.
Law, J., ed. 1986. Power, action and belief—A new sociology of knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
33.
Law, J.1991. Power, discretion and strategy. In A sociology of monsters—Essays on power, technology and domination, edited by J. Law, 165-191. London: Routledge.
34.
Law, J.1997. Traduction/trahison: Notes on ANT. http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/stslaw2.html (accessed February 4, 2002).
35.
Law, J.1999. Introduction. In Actor-network theory and after, edited by J. Law and J. Hassard, 1-14. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
36.
Law, J.2000. Objects, spaces, others. http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/soc027jl.html (accessed February 4, 2002).
37.
Law, J., and A. Mol. 1995. Notes on materiality and sociality. Sociological Review43 (2): 274-294.
38.
Lee, A.1999. Researching MIS. In Rethinking management information systems—An interdisciplinary perspective, edited by W. Currie and B. Galliers, 7-27. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
39.
Lee, N.1999. The challenge of childhood—Distributions of childhood’s ambiguity in adult institutions. Childhood6 (4): 455-474.
40.
Lee, N., and S. Brown. 1994. Otherness and the actor-network: The undiscovered continent. American Behavioral Scientist37 (6): 772-790.
41.
Lee, N., and J. Hassard. 1999. Organization unbound: Actor-network theory, research strategy and institutional flexibility. Organization6 (3): 391-404.
42.
Lee, N., and K. Hetherington. 2000. Social order and the blank figure. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space18 (2): 69-184.
43.
Mackenzie, D., and J. Wajcman, eds. 1985. The social shaping of technology. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
44.
Mansell, R., ed. 1994. Management of information and communication technologies—Emerging patterns of control. London: Aslib.
45.
Martin, E.1998. GIS implementation and the un-theory: Some useful concepts from ANT. http://students.washington.edu/%7Eewmartin/papers/ant511.htm (accessed August 1, 2001).
46.
McBride, N.2001. Using actor-network theory to predict the organisational success of a communications network. http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/%7Enkm/WTCPAP.html.
Mol, A.1998.Missing links, making links: The performance of some artheroscleroses. In Differences in medicine: Unravelling practices, techniques and bodies, edited by A. Mol and M. Berg, 141-163. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
49.
Mol, A.2001a. The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. London: Duke University Press.
50.
Mol, A.2001b. Cutting surgeons, walking patients: Some complexities involved in comparing. In Complexities in science, technology and medicine, edited by J. Law and A. Mol.Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
51.
Mol, A., and J. Law. 1994. Regions, networks and fluids: Anaemia and social topology. Social Studies of Science24:641-671.
52.
Monteiro, E.2000. Actor-network theory and information infrastructure. In From control to drift: The dynamics of corporate information infrastructures, edited by C. Cibarra, J. Ljunberg, A. Failla, E. Monteiro, B. Dahlbom, and K. Braa, 71-86. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
53.
Morton, M.1988. Strategy formulation methodologies and IT. In Information management—The strategic dimension, edited by M. Earl.54-67. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
54.
Neyland, D., and C. Surridge. 2003. Information strategy stories—Evolving a dynamic strategy process. AUA Perspectives7 (1): 9-14.
55.
Neyland, D., and S. Woolgar. 2002. Accountability in action? The case of a database purchase decision. British Journal of Sociology53 (2): 259-274.
56.
Neyland, D., and S. Woolgar. 2003. “Everybody needs an ethnographer”—Accountability and utility in science and technology studies. Paper presented at the Connecting S&TS: The Academy, the Polity and the World conference, Cornell University, New York.
57.
Orna, E.1999. Practical information policies. 2nd ed.Aldershot, UK: Gower.
58.
Pettigrew, A.1987. Context and action in the transformation of the firm. Journal of Management Studies24 (6): 649-670.
59.
Reponen, T.1993. Strategic information systems—A conceptual analysis. Journal of Strategic Information Systems2 (2): 100-104.
60.
Rose, N.1996. Governing “advanced” liberal democracies. In Foucault and political reason, edited by A. Barry, T. Osborne, and N. Rose, 37-64. London: UCL Press.
61.
Schatzki, T., K. Knorr-Cetina, and E. von Savigny, eds. 2001. The practice turn in contemporary theory. London: Routledge.
62.
Schwartz Cowan, R.1989. The consumption junction: A proposal for research strategies in the sociology of technology. In The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology, edited by W. Bijker, T. Hughes, and T. Pinch, 261-280. London: MIT Press.
63.
Smits, M., K. van der Poel, and P. Ribbers. 1997. Assessment of information strategies in insurance companies in the Netherlands. Journal of Strategic Information Systems6:129-148.
64.
Star, S., and J. Griesemer. 1989. Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science19:387-420.
Thompson, J.1995Strategy in action. London: Chapman & Hall.
67.
Thrift, N.2000. Afterwords. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space18 (2): 213-256.
68.
Weick, K.2001. Making sense of the organization. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
69.
Whittington, R.1993. What is strategy and does it matter?London: Routledge.
70.
Winner, L.1985. Do artefacts have politics? In The social shaping of technology, edited by D. Mackenzie and J. Wajcman, 26-38. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
71.
Woolgar, S.1988. Science: The very idea. Routledge: London.
72.
Woolgar, S.1991. Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. In A sociology of monsters—Essays on power, technology and domination, edited by J. Law, 57-99. London:Routledge.
73.
Woolgar, S., and G. Cooper. 1999. Do artefacts have ambivalence? Moses’ bridges, Winner’s bridges and other legends in STS. Social Studies of Science29 (3): 433-449.
