翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ Actors in Noh Matta Wat!
・ Actors Movement Studio
・ Actors of the World
・ Actors Orphanage
・ Actors Student Alliance
・ Actors Studio
・ Actors Studio (TV series)
・ Actors Studio Drama School at Pace University
・ Actors Theatre of Louisville
・ Actors&Actresses
・ Actors' Analects
・ Actors' Equity Association
・ Actors' Laboratory Theatre
・ Actors' Theatre of Columbus
・ Actorworks
Actor–network theory
・ Actor–observer asymmetry
・ Actovegin
・ Actoxumab
・ ACTR1A
・ ACTR1B
・ ACTR2
・ ACTR3
・ ACTR3B
・ ACTRA
・ ACTRA Award
・ ACTRA Foster Hewitt Award
・ ActRaiser
・ ActRaiser 2
・ Actran


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

Actor–network theory : ウィキペディア英語版
Actor–network theory

Actor–network theory (ANT) is an approach to social theory and research, originating in the field of science studies, which treats objects as part of social networks. Although it is best known for its controversial insistence on the capacity of nonhumans to act or participate in systems or networks or both, ANT is also associated with forceful critiques of conventional and critical sociology. Developed by science and technology studies (STS) scholars Michel Callon and Bruno Latour, the sociologist John Law, and others, it can more technically be described as a "material-semiotic" method. This means that it maps relations that are simultaneously material (between things) and semiotic (between concepts). It assumes that many relations are both material and semiotic.
Broadly speaking, ANT is a constructivist approach in that it avoids essentialist explanations of events or innovations (i. e. ANT explains a successful theory by understanding the combinations and interactions of elements that make it successful, rather than saying it is “true” and the others are “false”). However, it is distinguished from many other STS and sociological network theories for its distinct material-semiotic approach.
==Background and context==
ANT was first developed at the Centre de Sociologie de l'Innovation (CSI) of the École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris in the early 1980s by staff (Michel Callon and Bruno Latour) and visitors (including John Law). The 1984 book co-authored by John Law and fellow-sociologist Peter Lodge (Science for Social Scientists; London: Macmillan Press LTD) is a good example of early explorations of how the growth and structure of knowledge could be analyzed and interpreted through the interactions of actors and networks. Initially created in an attempt to understand processes of innovation and knowledge-creation in science and technology, the approach drew on existing work in STS, on studies of large technological systems, and on a range of French intellectual resources including the semiotics of Algirdas Julien Greimas, the writing of philosopher Michel Serres, and the Annales School of history.
ANT appears to reflect many of the preoccupations of French post-structuralism, and in particular a concern with non-foundational and multiple material-semiotic relations. At the same time, it was much more firmly embedded in English-language academic traditions than most post-structuralist-influenced approaches. Its grounding in (predominantly English) science and technology studies was reflected in an intense commitment to the development of theory through qualitative empirical case-studies. Its links with largely US-originated work on large technical systems were reflected in its willingness to analyse large scale technological developments in an even-handed manner to include political, organizational, legal, technical and scientific factors.
Many of the characteristic ANT tools (including the notions of translation, generalized symmetry and the “heterogeneous network”), together with a scientometric tool for mapping innovations in science and technology (“co-word analysis”) were initially developed during the 1980s, predominantly in and around the CSI. The “state of the art” of ANT in the late 1980s is well-described in Latour’s 1987 text, ''Science in Action''.〔Latour, B. (1987). ''Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society.'' Milton Keynes: Open University Press.〕
From about 1990 onwards, ANT started to become popular as a tool for analysis in a range of fields beyond STS. It was picked up and developed by authors in parts of organizational analysis, informatics, health studies, geography, sociology, anthropology, feminist studies and economics.
, ANT is a widespread, if controversial range of material-semiotic approaches for the analysis of heterogeneous relations. In part because of its popularity, it is interpreted and used in a wide range of alternative and sometimes incompatible ways. There is no orthodoxy in current ANT, and different authors use the approach in substantially different ways. Some authors talk of “after-ANT” to refer to “successor projects” blending together different problem-focuses with those of ANT.〔John Law and John Hassard (eds) (1999). ''Actor Network Theory and After'' (Oxford and Keele: Blackwell and the Sociological Review).〕

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「Actor–network theory」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.