SOCL919: Actor Network Theory and Social Reflexivity 31304694
1
Actor-Network Theory and Social Reflexivity: Humans and
Technologies in a Collaborative Research Project
Collaborative research is widely understood to be the co-production of knowledge within a
team (Phillips et al. 2013). The level of co-production is likely to vary throughout a research
project and for each person involved due to the participatory nature of the task and the
inherent tensions, contradictions, dilemmas and power imbalances this brings (Phillips 2011).
During the collaborative research project I completed with four other MA students, tensions
arose within the group mainly due to difference of opinions, power struggles and the role of
technology.
Technology has become irreplaceable in the co-production of knowledge, especially within
collaborative research when it is relied upon not only for processing, but for communication
(Schroeder 2010). It is difficult to imagine a research project in which technology is not
entrusted with data and information affecting future decisions. However, much of the
research undertaken on collaborative work limits the co-production of knowledge to humans
(Phillips et al. 2013, Butcher and Jeffrey 2007, Boozeman and Gaughan 2011) despite the
increasingly significant, mediating role of technology. Consequently, this essay focuses upon
the role of technology using Actor-Network Theory (ANT) to provide an often overlooked,
non-anthropocentric reflection of the research project.
ANT is used to reflect upon the role of technology and how we (actors), worked in networks
with the following non-human technologies (actants): hardware, social networking sites and
software. ANT was one of the first theories to assign agency to actants in consideration and
reflection of the complex inter-relations between actors and actants and is therefore a theory
from which the agency of technology can be examined. Donna Haraway’s post-humanist
SOCL919: Actor Network Theory and Social Reflexivity 31304694
2
theory will additionally be drawn upon as a furthering of ANT to show the moulding of
technology and humans into cyborgs. First, I define anthropocentric reflexivity and social
reflexivity, and introduce Actor-Network Theory.
Reflexivity and Actor-Network Theory
Scott and Marshall (2009) define reflexivity in reference to Gouldner’s (1970)
anthropormorphic work in which he argues that objective knowledge is inconceivable
because knowledge is a product of the knower. As an antithesis to positivist social science,
Gouldner called for the implementation of critical and reflexive sociology which accounts for
the role of the self upon the research (Holland 1999). Gouldner’s perception of reflexivity
adopts an intrinsically anthropocentric and therefore sociologically reductionist stance by
focusing solely on the influence of the self. It is impossible to conduct research without
affecting, or be affected by, other actors/actants (Law 2004), and consequently a wider
conception of reflexivity is required.
ANT was created within the realm of Science and Technology Studies (STS) in opposition to
the positivist claim that the scientific method produces a privileged form of knowledge
(Latour 2005). Knowledge is a social product formulated through a network of heterogeneous
materials, co-produced as a consequence of the inter-relations between actors and actants
(Law 1992). Knowledge co-production depends upon materio-semiotic networks, including
technology, which shape the social (Ibid.).
Actants are differentiated into two groups: intermediaries and mediators. Whilst defining the
inputs of intermediators is sufficient to define their outputs, mediators, in contrast, generate
outputs that cannot be determined by its inputs as they are multipliers of difference and thus
transformative (Miettinen 2009). Technology is therefore a mediator as its social
ramifications go far beyond that which can be predicted by, for example, simply typing up a
SOCL919: Actor Network Theory and Social Reflexivity 31304694
3
report on a laptop. Sociological research needs to consider the role of technology within
networks in recognition of our increasing reliance, and its influence on, modern day society.
I do not claim to be a faithful translator for ANT, the actors, the actants, or the network I
represent in this essay. My centering as the only credible spokesperson for the network
(Latour 1983) is an unfortunate consequence of non-collaborative university coursework and
the lack of communicable understanding between actors and actants. Representation always
betrays its object as “the process of coming to know [objects]… is also a process of
translation” (Law 2003b: 10) in which those actants that I represent are inherently absent
from the milieu and thus silenced and displaced in the first person (Callon 1986).
Throughout this essay, I attempt to translate for actors and actants to account for their
differing situated descriptions of the network(s) in which they are involved. I aim to highlight
the value of using social reflexivity and ANT to account for the heterogeneous network in a
collaborative research project and to prove that singular, anthropocentric reflexivity cannot
provide a comprehensive view of the co-production of knowledge.
The Research Network
Three primary networks can be identified as operating within the research project: (1) the first
research network that conducted fieldwork; (2) the second research network that conducted
fieldwork; (3) the research network. This essay focuses upon the actors and technological
actants within the (3) research team network in the context of their mediating roles (Figure 1).
For example, when transcribing interviews, a Dictaphone is considered a mediator between
interviewee and transcriber by guaranteeing the accuracy of historical accounts beyond the
capability of human memory: the Dictaphone is therefore fundamental to the co-production
of knowledge (cf. Storey 2014). The role of technology is selectively analysed to provide an
in-depth reflexive account of its influence upon the collaborative research project.
SOCL919: Actor Network Theory and Social Reflexivity 31304694
4
Figure 1: The technological actants and actors’ interactions in research network 3
SOCL919: Actor Network Theory and Social Reflexivity 31304694
5
Technological Hardware: Trust, Dependency and Permanency
Technology was a major actant in the research network and formed a central part of the
relational outcomes. One of the most important actants within the research network, if not the
most important, were laptops. As shown in Figure 1, all the other actors and technological
actants were somehow reliant upon the laptop.
The concept of ‘Digital Natives’ (Prensky 2001) has developed since 2000 as a result of the
technological partiality of students born after 1980 (Oblinger and Oblinger 2005). The
extreme reliance upon technology within the current academic generation
(Palfrey and Gasser 2008) was clearly demonstrated by the research team: each time we met,
five laptops, five phones and the interactive whiteboard were in use (Figure 2).
Figure 2: An example of the actors and technological actants in a group meeting
Laptop
Unfortunately, my laptop broke two weeks before the submission date of the research project
report. In addition to the stress of a fast approaching deadline, my laptop was the only storage
device for all of our coded interview data. Panic ensued. I managed to extract the data and
save it to an external hard-drive, although much to our dismay, it was incompatible with other
laptops. After four hours of worry, the hard-drive miraculously functioned for a short period
SOCL919: Actor Network Theory and Social Reflexivity 31304694
6
during which the data was quickly extracted from NVivo (coding software) and saved in
multiple locations.
My laptop’s dis-functioning caused me to question our technological propensity as we had
been entrusting our data onto hardware of which we had limited understanding. The
mediating role of the laptop became apparent from the unconditional trust that I bestow on it
every night that my work will still be there when I switch it on the next day. There are only a
handful of people who I would trust with my coursework, yet bizarrely, I trust that the data
will be saved and re-accessible in the future on any computer I choose to use. This common
trait amongst students raises the question as to why we place more trust in technology than
we do in each other?
ANT aims to achieve generalised symmetry by not imposing asymmetric a priori
assumptions of causal relations between actors and actants (Latour 2005). It challenges the
myth that “a priori qualities and meanings inhere in technology regardless of context”
(Ackerman et al. 2012: 2378) and rather, technology’s qualities and meanings become
evident a posteriori through frequent inter-relations from which trust is engendered based on
the reliability of technology in meeting our expectations (Sommerville et al. 2006). Our
experience with any laptop makes us trust all laptops whilst our relations with some humans
do not make us trust all humans. Therefore, although the qualities and meanings are a
posteriori, they become universal and generalisable to technology.
The trust we endow on technology is largely due to its practical dependability, whereby
dependability is defined technically in terms of performance metrics and tolerances but
defined everyday as a generalised display of trust:
the determination of whether a system is trusted or not consists in the ways in
which people make everyday judgements about trust which may accord, but which
SOCL919: Actor Network Theory and Social Reflexivity 31304694
7
may also not accord with criteria that designers and engineers use to determine the
dependability of a system (Button 2006: xii)
Trust is an occasioned matter and comes to light when it is systematically breached
(Button 2006). When my laptop broke, the occasion made me re-evaluate my belief and trust
in technology. Was failure mechanistic or did the machine purposefully, and rationally, break
in response to human induced faults?
Technology’s self-evolution provides agency to the machine implying the existence of an
environment attributable to the machine as well as one attributable to the human. Therefore
from the laptop’s perspective, the human is simply considered a system element equal to
other software and hardware (Sommerville et al. 2006). Humans cause technical problems for
the laptop because “failures in the development system as a result of human errors lead to the
introduction of faults in the operational system” (Ibid.: 177). The laptop is an actant to which
humans provide negative inputs potentially initiating a built-in system of self-preservation,
the worst outcome of which is rationally deduced self-destruction. One might consider the
machine’s reasoning to be based upon greater rationality than that of a human due to the level
of faults it has to achieve before the machine may destroy itself. Is the machine more rational
than its creator?
In the case of my laptop breaking, had I created too many faults in the operating system
initiating self-destruction? ANT allows us to reflect upon multiple perspectives that exist
surrounding each scenario accounting for multiple actors and actants. It therefore serves to
provide us with a greater understanding of the human/technology relationship on multiple
levels: the dependent human, the creator of problems and the self-evolution of the machine in
response to errors. If using Gouldner’s anthropocentric approach to reflexivity, I would focus
only upon the actor’s reaction to the laptop breakage whereas social reflexivity encompass
multi-dimensional focuses: the cause of breakage, the inter-relations between actors and
SOCL919: Actor Network Theory and Social Reflexivity 31304694
8
actants, and the effect of the breakage upon networks. For example, my laptop’s death caused
me to post less frequent research project updates on Twitter due to the hassle of having to use
another technological device. This may have prevented us from connecting with other
individuals interested in the project who had been following our hashtag, #girlsaspirations.
Thus, the failure of my laptop is likely to have instigated chain reactions of consequences in
other networks. If the scenario were to re-occur, I would adopt a less self-centred viewpoint
and instead consider how I could minimise the impact upon all networks that the laptop is a
part of to ensure knowledge co-production can still occur.
Interactive Whiteboard
The interactive whiteboard also became a vital part of collaborative team work in which we
discovered more and more mediating qualities as the research project progressed. Whilst we
were unstable and dynamic, the solidity of the whiteboard around which we gathered
provided us with continuity throughout the 10 week process. Whilst we were sometimes
unreliable and late for meetings, the permanency of the whiteboard meant work could still be
done regardless of the number of actors present. Additionally, the whiteboard subdued the
power differentials between said actors because it provided opportunities for everyone to put
forward their opinions (Haug 2013). On the other hand, the singular laptop input capability of
the whiteboard enhanced a position of dominance within the group because the person using
the laptop was in a position of power from which they could define the outcomes of the
meeting. Arguably, the power differentials within the research group seemed to improve our
effectiveness and forged our team identity as each actor was dependent upon the role of the
others (Doorewaard and Brouns 2003).
The actant’s continuity caused essential differences to arise between the actors and the
technological actants a posteriori. We found ourselves servants of the whiteboard’s schedule
and availability, utilising its services by meeting in its predetermined environment twice a
SOCL919: Actor Network Theory and Social Reflexivity 31304694
9
week to amalgamate our work into the final project. The trust we bestowed on the interactive
whiteboard, whilst similar to that bestowed on the laptops, centered around the concept of
permanency than dependency.
Smartphone
When editing the final report, various technologies were used by each actor. Two actors each
edited a hard copy of a draft version of the final report which they were supposed to scan and
upload to Dropbox to allow another two actors, myself included, to review it and to make
appropriate changes. One of the actors could not use a scanner and instead, used a smart
phone to take a photograph of each edited page and sent them to me via text message.
The “agglomeration of multiple digital devices” into the smartphone means its use varies
depending on the function required (Wang et al. 2014: 2). The smartphone provided a base in
the collaborative research from which apps and websites were accessed, journals were read,
notes were taken and team communication occurred. The smartphone’s diverse functionality
meant it became a key intermediary actant by facilitating access to other actors and actants
within the network.
Section Summary
As shown, technological hardware has become an integral mediator of collaborative research
projects as a result of the trust we bestow upon it. Our dependency upon technology is born
from continuous inter-relations which reinforces the permanency of machines within human
culture. Hardware is also an intermediary as it provides access to software necessary for
actors to communicate.
SOCL919: Actor Network Theory and Social Reflexivity 31304694
10
Social Networking Sites and Technological Software: Consistency,
Irreplaceability and Access
Electronic devices enabled us to make use of five main software programmes/social
networking sites which were actants within our research: Facebook, Twitter, NVivo,
Microsoft Word and Dropbox. With no accessible substitutes, this section concentrates on the
role of Facebook and NVivo within the project.
Social networking sites are the fastest-growing and most popular of the internet-based
technologies amongst students in Higher Education (Robyler et al. 2010) with over 95 % of
British students using them (Madge et al. 2009). Their use for formal academic
communication between faculty members and students is still limited, probably a result of
faculty perceiving the sites to be social rather than educational (Robyler et al. 2010).
However, despite the broad reluctance of academic staff’s to use social networking sites,
Facebook has been shown to be a significant aid in collaborative research and collaborative
learning by making distance communication between actors much easier (Irwin et al. 2012).
Facebook was the core communication technology used in our research project, enabling us
to work together when spatially distant. All actors had a virtual presence on Facebook
meaning it was the easiest way to communicate with one another as a group, share files and
ensure we were all working to a pre-established target. Documents were uploaded into our
Facebook group for other team members to view, edit and format into the final report. The
most significant use of this service occurred the weekend before submission with 10 files
uploaded (Figure 3).
SOCL919: Actor Network Theory and Social Reflexivity 31304694
11
Figure 3: Our use of Facebook to share files. Photograph taken 07/12/14.
Selwyn (2009) conducted ethnographic research with 909 undergraduate students in a UK
University and found Facebook was used for five main purposes:
Recounting and reflecting on the university experience
Exchange of practical information
Exchange of academic information
Displays of supplication and/or disengagement
Banter (i.e.) exchange of humour and nonsense
In our case, Facebook was primarily used for the exchange of practical and academic
information. It proved vital for sharing room bookings, posting meeting times and creating
fieldwork events. In future group work, I would propose to use Facebook to organise events
due to its ease of use and wide applicability.
SOCL919: Actor Network Theory and Social Reflexivity 31304694
12
Bikson and Eveland (2014) found that computer based communication technologies can help
reduce barriers to social interaction in working groups and broaden leadership roles.
Facebook certainly made social interaction much easier and therefore it could be argued that
it reduced social barriers when actors were spatially distant. However, it also created barriers
by inhibiting the use of alternative communication tools/actants, such as email. The broad
applicability of Facebook sometimes caused us to forget that other, more effective,
communication technologies were available, such as making a simple phone call.
However, despite their existence, using a myriad of technologies would have likely caused
incoherence as identified by previous research students (cf. Beacham 2014). All actors were
familiar with Facebook and subsequently comfortable using it for academic purposes. The
use of one technology for communication provided all actors with an accurate and identical
record of all dialogue. This allowed actors to keep track of progress, view files in a single
online location and easily refer to previous online conversations for the development of ideas.
Although substitutes exist for the functions of Facebook, such as Google Docs or Dropbox
for file exchange, Facebook provides a unique platform from which multiple services can be
performed in one online space. Thus, Facebook was the key actant for ensuring continuity
and consistency in our project from start to finish, even though it silenced other actants in the
process.
NVivo
NVivo was used within the research project to thematically analyse and categorise our
interview data to a greater level of detail (Rubin and Rubin 2012). In contrast to manual
paper coding, the digital coding within NVivo allowed all actors to access the data from a
central online database. The software mediated the research analysis by providing a platform
on which codes were amalgamated into themes, memos were linked to interview
transcriptions, quantitative data were linked to qualitative data and, all data sources were
SOCL919: Actor Network Theory and Social Reflexivity 31304694
13
brought together. Using NVivo’s structured coding processes facilitated consistent analysis
by all actors thereby improving the validity of the results. On the other hand, the rigidity of
the programme’s functioning might be argued to limit creativity and predetermine findings
(John and Johnson 2000).
I was the only actor with prior knowledge of NVivo and therefore taught the other actors how
to use the software using the interactive whiteboard. By using NVivo in this project, the
software may be incorporated into multiple networks as other team members may use it in
their future research. Thus, actors can mediate the networks in which technological actants
exist and vice versa.
Cyborg: the Entwinement of Technology and Biology
Thus far, I hope to have enlightened the reader regarding the importance of technological
actants to the production of knowledge, and the strength of the inter-relations between actors
and actants. However, if the actor and actant are so intimately related, why have I not
examined them as one?
During the STS ontological turn, ANT was heavily criticised for presupposing foundational,
functional differences between entities. ANT “actively dismantle[s] our ontological pre-
suppositions as to what constitutes a ‘human’ or a ‘technology’”
(Cyborg Anthropology 2012), yet the categorisation of entities suggests their functional
differences cannot be overcome and therefore, actors and actants cannot be combined. As a
result, post-humanist theories have developed to overcome ANT’s functionalist approach to
relational studies and improve the versatility of non-foundational theories.
Donna Haraway was a key post-humanist scholar during the STS ontological turn and created
a partially related, feminist technoscience alternative to ANT (Gough 2004) which recognises
agency in intra-relations. She suggests that actors can become ‘cyborgs’ or mixtures of
SOCL919: Actor Network Theory and Social Reflexivity 31304694
14
human and machine, where the biology and the technology become so intimately entangled
that they could not be riven (Harraway 1991). Haraway’s cyborg theory therefore
compliments ANT’s concept of generalised symmetry by breaking down asymmetric power
dualisms (Law 2009) whilst going one step further by mixing humans and non-humans
together (Gough 2004).
Within our research project, cyborgs can be conceived in the continual use, and presence, of
smartphones. Attributing agency to objects forces us to examine multiple, rather than
singular, realities in consideration of ontologies rather than ontology (Mol 2014). Ontologies
are entangled with one another, such as that of humans and technologies in cyborgs, thus
creating more than one but less than many versions of reality (Strathern, 2005).
Haraway’s post-humanist feminism provides an alternative, ontologically multiple approach
to ANT in which distinctions between humans and technology are dismantled. Within ANT,
the perception of reality held by each actor and actant is examined independently of other
alternative realities without “the privilege of a cyborg-like split vision” (Law 2003a: 9).
Although post-humanism develops ANT by allowing for the entanglement of entities and
recognising the fractional nature of reality (Law 2003a), this leads to a loss of categories
useful for distinguishing actants and actors. Post-humanism denies human distinctions and in
doing so, gives no guidance of how to define entities. In theory, there are no essential
differences between actors and actants, however as shown, differences are widely recognised
in practice. I have therefore used ANT in this work due to its theoretical recognition of
differences between actors and actants and the possibility of interdependency. Haraway’s
post-humanist theory collapses difference by allowing for the integration of multiple
ontologies, and therefore has limitations when applied to the examination of a network in
practice.
SOCL919: Actor Network Theory and Social Reflexivity 31304694
15
Conclusions
Throughout this essay I have attempted to illustrate the pivotal role technology has played in
our research project. In doing so, I have highlighted the importance of the stable, reliable and
permanent nature of technology compared to the unstable, unreliable and temporary nature of
humans within knowledge co-production. Our a posteriori trust and dependability in
technology was clearly demonstrated when my laptop broke and threatened the successful
completion of the research task. Only following mechanistic failure do we question our
reliance upon technology and consider the similarities that exist between mankind and the
machine, from which one might plausibly conclude that the self-evolution of technology
during the 21st century has developed a more rational ‘thinker’ than its creator.
ANT provides a lens through which I have examined the inter-relations between technology
and humans and reflected upon the research process. A network was formulated in the
research process in which actors and actants became dependent upon each other. In the
absence of technology, we would have struggled to complete the research project and our
agency would have been reduced due to a lack of capacity. Our research project was
intrinsically dependent upon technology.
The traditional concept of anthropocentric reflexivity does not allow for the inclusion of
actants which, as shown, are vital for the co-production of knowledge due to the inter-
dependency between actants and actors. ANT expands the traditional notion of reflexivity to
include the social milieu and the network(s) in which knowledge is produced. ANT has
provided an important framework for analysis by recognising the functional role of
technology within a network and, allowing for the examination of inter-relations between
actors and actants. Post-humanism could be used to further examine the construction of
SOCL919: Actor Network Theory and Social Reflexivity 31304694
16
cyborgs within the research project, however in comparison, ANT highlights actors and
actants inter-dependence rather than collapsing their differences.
The examination of inter-relations has provided an alternative reflexive account of the
research process and the construction of the research network ontology. Awareness of the
networks upon which the research project relies and the role of technology helps actants and
actors to effectively work together to construct research and the final report. As this essay has
shown, it is important to recognise the relations upon which we depend and take care to
maintain these throughout the project. We should try to not take technology for granted and
thus avoid the associated panic when an inter-relation breaks down.
Word Count: 3940
SOCL919: Actor Network Theory and Social Reflexivity 31304694
17
Bibliography
ACKERMAN, S. L., TEBB, K., STEIN, J. C., FRAZEE, B. W., HENDEY, G. W.,
SCHMIDT, L. A. & GONZALES, R. 2012. Benefit or burden? A sociotechnical
analysis of diagnostic computer kiosks in four California hospital emergency
departments. Social Science & Medicine, 75, 2378-2385.
BEACHAM, J. 2014. Working together, apart: reflections on the role of new communication
technologies in collaborative research. Lancaster: Lancaster University.
BIKSON, T. & EVELAND, J. 2014. The Interplay of Work Group Structures and Computer
Support. In: GALEGHAR, J., KRAUT, R. & EGIDO, C. (eds.) Intellectual
teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work 2nd ed. New
York: Psychology Press.
BOOZEMAN, B. & GAUGHAN, M. 2011. How do men and women differ in research
collaborations? An analysis of the collaborative motives and strategies of academic
researchers. Research Policy, 40, 1393-1402.
BUTCHER, J. & JEFFREY, P. 2007. A view from the coal face: UK research student
perceptions of successful and unsuccessful collaborative projects. Research Policy,
36, 1239-1250.
BUTTON, G. 2006. Introduction: A new Perspective on the Dependability of Software
Systems. In: CLARKE, K., HARDSTONE, G., ROUNCEFIELD, M. &
SOMMERVILLE, I. (eds.) Trust in technology: a socio-technical perspective.
Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
CALLON, M. 1986. Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: domestication of the
scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In: LAW, J. (ed.) Power, action and
belief: a new sociology of knowledge? London: Routledge.
CYBORG ANTHROPOLOGY. 2012. Actor Network Theory [online]. Availbale at:
http://cyborganthropology.com/Actor_Network_Theory [last accessed 16th December
2014].
DOOREWAARD, H. & BROUNS, B. 2003. Hegemonic Power Processes in Team‐based
Work. Applied Psychology, 52, 106-119.
GOUGH, N. 2004. RhizomANTically Becoming-Cyborg: Performing posthuman
pedagogies. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 36, 253–265.
GOULDNER, A. 1970. The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology, New York: Awn.
HARRAWAY, D. 1991. A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism
in the Late Twentieth Century. In: HARRAWAY, D. (ed.) Simians, Cyborgs and
Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge.
SOCL919: Actor Network Theory and Social Reflexivity 31304694
18
HAUG, C. 2013. Organizing Spaces: Meeting Arenas as a Social Movement Infrastructure
between Organization, Network, and Institution. Organization Studies, 34, 705-732.
HOLLAND, R. 1999. Reflexivity. Human Relations, 52, 463-484.
IRWIN, C., BALL, L., DESBROW, B. & LEVERITT, M. 2012. Students' perceptions of
using Facebook as an interactive learning resource at university. Australasian Journal
of Educational Technology, 28, 1221-1232.
JOHN, W. S. & JOHNSON, P. 2000. The Pros and Cons of Data Analysis Software for
Qualitative Research. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 32, 393–397.
LATOUR, B. 1983. Give me a Laboratory and I will Raise the World. In: KNOR-CETINA,
K. D. & MULKAY, M. K. (eds.) Science Observed. Beverly Hills: Sage.
LATOUR, B. 2005. Reassembling the Social-An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory,
Oxford, Oxford University Press.
LAW, J. 1992. Notes on the Theory of the Actor Network: Ordering, Strategy and
Heterogeneity [Online]. Centre for Science Studies: Lancaster University. Available:
http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/papers/Law-Notes-on-ANT.pdf [Accessed
15th December 2014].
LAW, J. 2003a. Networks, Relations, Cyborgs: on the Social Study of Technology [Online].
Lancaster University: Centre for Science Studies. Available:
http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/papers/Law-Networks-Relations-Cyborgs.pdf
[Accessed 20th December 2014].
LAW, J. 2003b. Traduction/Trahison: Notes on ANT [Online]. Lancaster University: Centre
for Science Studies. Available: http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/papers/Law-
Traduction-Trahison.pdf [Accessed 15th December 2014].
LAW, J. 2004. After Method: mess in social science research, London: Routledge.
LAW, J. 2009. Actor Network Theory and Material Semiotics. In: Turner, B. (ed.) 2009. The
New Blackwell Companion To Social Theory. Sussex: Blackwell Publishing Ltd,
141-158.
MADGE, C., MEEK, J., WELLENS, J. & HOOLEY, T. 2009. Facebook, social integration
and informal learning at university: ‘It is more for socialising and talking to friends
about work than for actually doing work’. Learning, Media and Technology, 34, 141-
155.
MIETTINEN, R. 2009. The riddle of things: Activity theory and actor‐network theory as
approaches to studying innovations, Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6, 3, 170-195.
MOL, A. 2014. A reader’s guide to the “ontological turn” – Part 4 [online]. Available at:
http://somatosphere.net/2014/03/a-readers-guide-to-the-ontological-turn-part-4.html
[last accessed 16th December 2014].
SOCL919: Actor Network Theory and Social Reflexivity 31304694
19
OBLINGER, D. & OBLINGER, J. 2005. Is it age or IT: First steps toward understanding the
net generation. In: OBLINGER, D. & OBLINGER, J. (eds.) Educating the net
generation. Online: EDUCAUSE.
PALFREY, J. & GASSER, U. 2008. Born digital: Understanding the first generation of
digital natives, New York: Basic Books.
PHILLIPS, I. 2011. The Promise of Dialogue: The Dialogical Turn in the Production and
Communication of Knowledge, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
PHILLIPS, L., KRISTIANSEN, M., VEHVILAINEN, M. & GUNNARSSON, E. 2013.
Tackling the Tensions of Dialogue and Participation. In: PHILLIPS, L.,
KRISTIANSEN, M., VEHVILAINEN, M. & GUNNARSSON, E. (eds.) Knowledge
and power in collaborative research: a reflexive approach. New York: Routledge.
PRENSKY, M. 2001. Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9, 1–6.
ROBYLER, M., MCDANIEL, M., WEBB, M., & WITTY, J. 2010. Findings on Facebook in
higher education: A comparison of college faculty and student uses and perceptions of
social networking sites. The Internet and Higher Education, 13, 134-140.
RUBIN, H. J. & RUBIN, I. S. 2012. Qualitative Interviewing: the Art of Hearing Data,
London: Sage Publications.
SCHROEDER, R. 2010. Mobile phones and the inexorable advance of multimodal
connectedness. New Media & Society, 12, 75-90.
SCOTT, J. & MARSHALL, G. 2009. A Dictionary of Sociology, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
SELWYN, N. 2009. Faceworking: exploring students’ education-related use of Facebook.
Learning, Media and Technology, 34, 157-174.
SOMMERVILLE, I., DEWSBURY, G., CLARKE, K. & ROUNCEFIELD, M. 2006.
Dependability and Trust in Organisational and Domestic Computer Systems. In:
CLARKE, K., HARDSTONE, G., ROUNCEFIELD, M. & SOMMERVILLE, I.
(eds.) Trust in technology: a socio-technical perspective. Dordrecht: Springer
Netherlands.
STOREY, J. 2014. From Popular Culture to Everyday Life. Abingdon: Routledge.
STRATHERN, M. 2005. Partial Connections. Oxford: Rowman Altamira.
WANG, D., XIANG, Z. & FESENMAIER, D. 2014. Smartphone Use in Everyday Life and
Travel. Journal of Travel Research, DOI: 10.1177/0047287514535847.
Top Related