Actor-network Theory and its Concepts

A theory provides the guidelines needed to answer common questions such as how, when, what, where, who and why (Wacker 1998). Theory can also be used as an initial guide for research design and the collection of data, as part of an iterative process of data collection and analysis, or as a final product of research (Walsham 1995). However, during the process of choosing a theory, as Walsham (2006) pointed out, a theory should be considered to be essentially subjective. Researchers need to choose a theory “which they feel is in insightful to them” (Walsham 2006, p. 325). As this research is about negotiation in e-procurement, which involves many actors, ANT is used as the methodological tool to assist the researcher to ‘unpack’ the actors involved in negotiation within an e-procurement network. As stated by Callon (1986), a fundamental aspect of ANT is the methodological guidance needed to follow the activities of both human and non-human actors. Therefore, the researcher selected actor-network theory as it could be utilised as a basis for the analysis of the case studies of negotiation in e-procurement.

84

ANT is not a theory per se. Theories usually attempt to explain why something happens, while ANT emphasises how associations are made and transformed (Latour 2005). Law (2007, p. 141) explained that:

The actor-network approach is not a theory. Theories usually try to explain why something happens, but actor-network theory is descriptive rather than foundational in explanatory terms, which means that is a disappointment for those seeking strong accounts. Instead it tells stories about ‘how’ relations assemble or don’t. As a form, one of several, of semiotics, it is better understood as a toolkit for telling interesting stories about, and interfering in, those relations. More profoundly, it is a sensibility to the messy practices of rationality and materiality of the world.

A key proposition of ANT is to treat human and non-human actors, as well as networks, in a symmetrical fashion (Pouloudi 2004). ANT is also known as the sociology of translation, because it outlines how actors form alliances and enrol other actors, and use non-human actors (artefacts) to strengthen such alliances. Thus, according to ANT, actor networks are created which contain humans as well as artefacts (Callon 1986). Actor-network theorists want to understand and illustrate how a bond has been created between human actors and non-human actors (Dolwick 2009).

Hanseth et al. (2004) classified this theory as a social theory of technology, because of its potential contribution to gaining a better understanding of the social context of the development, implementation and use of information systems. ANT emerged during the mid-1980s, primarily through the work of Latour (1987, 1992, 2005), Callon (1986, 1991) and Law (1992), and researchers have since then continuously used this theory in the IS field in order to explore the interaction between human and non-human actors (Walsham 1997; Saundage 2009; Holmstron and Stalder 2001). Callon (1999) highlighted that the absence of a theory of the actor, when combined with the role attributed to non-humans in the description of actions is precisely one of the strengths of ANT. Therefore, the principles of ANT have been articulated through an elaborate

85

vocabulary of conceptual tools that aim to describe the complexity of socio-technical phenomena (Latour 1991). The main elements of the vocabulary of ANT that are used in this thesis include: actor, actor network, translation, problematisation, interessement, and enrolment. Mobilization is one more concept that include in the translation process.

However, this concept will not be applicable to explain the research phenomenon that is negotiation between partners in e-procurement network.

3.2.1 Actors and the Actor Network

The concept of the actor in ANT is defined as “any element which bends space around itself, makes other elements dependent upon itself and translates their will into the language of its own” (Callon and Latour 1981, p.286). Elements that are called an actor in ANT can include human actors and non-human actors. The actor is sometimes referred to as an actant (Hanseth et al. 2004). Common examples of actors include humans, collectives of humans, texts, graphical representations and technical artefacts and computers (Hanseth et al. 2004). Latour (2005) provided the example of the “actor”

from a drama within the theatre. The actor in this sense suggests that the source of inspiration of the action is somewhere else, perhaps in the audience, in the backstage area, in the crew, the props, the playwright or the character. Law (2003) implied that each actor can be defined and understood only in relation to other actors. As Callon and Latour (1981) stated, actors, all of which have interests, try to convince other actors so as to create an alignment of the other actors’ interests with their own. The interests of a non-human actor can be equated to the interest that has been inscribed to it. For instance it may be argued that a car’s seatbelt has an interest in a passenger’s safety that was inscribed in it by its designer.

Actor-network theorists suggest that human and non-human elements should not be viewed as completely independent elements, but rather as parts of a linked heterogeneous network (Latour 2005). Walsham and Sahay (1999, p.42) defined the actor-network as a

“heterogeneous network of aligned interest, including people, organisations and

86

standards”. ANT assumes that all networks are heterogeneous or socio-technical (Latour 2005). There are no networks that consist only of humans or only of technological components. All networks contain elements of both. Stalder (2001) stated that there are no actors without networks and no networks without actors, as both need to perform their roles for the other to exist, and this is the activity that takes place within a technological environment. Law (2003) further highlighted the need to switch attention to individual network elements whenever any degeneration appears likely to occur within the network package. An example of this could be that the human body is seen as a unitary whole while it works normally; yet a sick person needs to be viewed as a complex network of physiological processes by his or her physician.

3.2.2 Translation

Translation in the ANT vocabulary refers to the creation of an actor-network (Callon 1986).In creating an actor network, the interests, meanings and values of different actors are aligned through the process of negotiation. This develops and stabilises the network that has been created (Callon 1986). The actors claim the authority to act and speak on behalf of other actors (Callon and Latour 1981). The translation can only be clearly understood when it is examined from the point of view of a specific actor, because within organisations there are often multiple actors initiating and engaging in translation, each with different interests and outcomes. A focal actor is often the key actor that drives the process of enlisting the other actors’ support for organisational initiatives (Callon 1986).

The process of translation can be divided into three stages, namely, problematisation, interessement and enrolment (Callon 1986). The translation processes may not involve all three stages, and a translation process may fail and break at any stage (Callon 1986).

Problematisation is the first stage of translation, during which a focal actor frames a problem or an opportunity in his or her own terms. The focal actor identifies other relevant actors, and highlights how the problem can be adapted. It is crucial that a solution is found that meets the common interest of the participating actors, despite their

87

many varied interests. Therefore, the focal actor must outline broad strategies for addressing the problem at hand, and must establish the obligatory passage point (OPP).

The OPP refers to a situation or process that is specified by the focal actor, through which all relevant actors can find a shared focus while successfully pursuing the interest attributed to them. While the OPP lies on the path of the focal actor, other actors also need to be convinced to pass through the OPP by modifying their behaviour in a way that ensures they are consistent with the OPP. Figure 3.1 represents the problematisation moment that shows the actors’ diversion from overcoming the obstacles in their way, in order to reach their goals.

Actor 1 Actor 2 Actor 3 Actor 4

Obstacle Obstacle Obstacle OPP

Goal1 Goal2 Goal3 Goal4

Figure 3.1:Problematisation moment in the translation process – Actors’ diversion to overcome obstacles(Adopted from Callon1986))

Figure 3.1 shows the actors involved in the problematisation moment, where Actor 1 represents the focal actor and Actor 2, Actor 3 and Actor 4 are the relevant actors identified by the focal actor. Each actor involved has their own goals or interests to achieve. These goals can only be achieved if the problems framed by the focal actor can be overcome. Thus, the OPP is the strategy suggested by the focal actor to the relevant actors, which they can follow in order to avoid obstacles and reach their goals.

88

Interessement is the second moment of translation that involves convincing other heterogeneous actors that the interests defined by the focal actor are consistent with what their own interests should be (Callon 1986). In other words, interessement refers to other actors becoming interested in the proposed solution. The process of interessement often involves negotiations amongst actors. However, the actors are not always involved in the negotiation process. Speakers or representatives normally undertake the negotiation on behalf of the actors (Callon 1986).A speaker is sometimes called the “spokesperson”, and acts as a facilitator who speaks on behalf of other actors (Callon1986).

If the interessement is successful then enrolment is said to occur. Enrolment involves the definition of the roles of each actor in the newly created actor network, such that the focal actor aligns the defined roles with the interests of the network. The actors, after being convinced by the focal actor, accept their roles and interests (Callon 1986). Inscription occurs often as part of the enrolment process (Callon 1986). Inscription is the process whereby, once an agreement between actors has been reached, the commitment is recorded into the shared memory of the social system through the creation of text; for instance, a software manual or technical artefact such as a security system.

Mobilization is the final stage of translation process. Mobilization includes initiators’ use of a set of methods to ensure that allied spokespersons act according to the agreement and do not betray the initiator’s interest. Building on a set of enrolled actors, initiators seek to secure continued support to the underlying ideas from enrolled actors. With allies mobilized, an actor-network achieves stability (Callon 1986).