Discussion
Actor-network theory is associated with the works of Bruno Latour, John Law and Michael Callon. The individuals were Science and Technology Studies scholars. It is a unique approach to the social research and theory.
The origin of the actor-network theory can be traced from the science studies. This approach is distinguished from other approaches for involving agency of non-humans in the network (Prinsloo and Baynham, 2008, p. 152).
This theory relates the materials relations as well as the relations between concepts. It assumes that in most of the relations we encounter in day to day life are semiotic and material. For instance, interactions in school involve students, their teachers as well as the equipments like desks, chairs and other forms of technology. Teachers and students interact with the help. The combination of all these elements forms a network.
The actor-network theory tends to explain how both material and semiotic concepts comes together to act as one. For instance, the school is an entity composed of students, teachers and the equipments necessary. However, these combine and act as one network. They all interact to make a functional institution.
On the other hand, the proponents of the theory of the social construction of technology argues that new technological developments takes place through negotiation and struggle over the meanings and material shapes involving the social actors (Barkardjieva, 2005, p.10).
This theory emanates from the field of science and technology studies. According to this theory, human actions are not directed by technology; instead, it is the human beings who shape the technology (Anonymous, 2009, par 1). The proponents of this theory argue that it is difficult to understand technology without first understanding how the technology is related in its social context.
This theory provides the procedure through which the cause of technological success or failure can be assessed. This is made possible by provision of a form of methodology through which this can be verified.
Differences between Actor-Network Theory and the theory of the Social Construction of Technology
One of the main differences between the actor network theory and the Social Construction of Technology theory is that the former involves objects and organizations in the framework while the latter does not. For instance, when buying a cloth in a shop, the actor-network in this process includes the person who is purchasing the cloth, the cashier, the cash used in buying, cash register as well as the produce involved.
On the other hand, the theory of social construction of technology recognizes the importance of human actions in shaping technology. It opposes the idea that technology can shape human actions in any particular way. This is unlike the actor-network theory which does not recognize objects and organizations.
Another difference between these theories is that the actor-network theory is diverse. This is unlike the theory of social construction of technology which overemphasizes on the human influence on technology choice.
The social network theory originated from the area of science studies while the social construction of technology is more inclined to the science and technology studies. Although the two methods are related, they differ from their emergence. This is the reason why they differ in various aspects.
SCOT has given a clear elaboration of the reasons why a certain technology may be accepted or rejected in the society. On the other hand, the actor-network theory does not give such an explanation. It considered every component in the network as equally important. In fact, this is one of the weaknesses of this method.
The actor-network theory makes an assumption that many relations are material and semiotic. For instance, the interaction between different people in a social institution as well as the equipments (technology) applied. On the other hand, the SCOT just identifies the influence of the human in shaping the technology. It does not recognize non human aspects.
Actor-Network Theory
Strengths of Actor-Network Theory
This method has a number of strengths which contributes to its success. One of the main strengths of the actor-network theory is that it gives a logical explanation of how effects are produced (Jones and Graham, 2003 p. 20).
This theory goes even further to show the connection between effects with other different interests. By giving a logical procedure, it implies that this theory is verifiable. An experiment can be conducted to verify propositions.
Another achievement of the action-network theory is that the ties and the nodes imagery which is applied in the concept used in this theory helps in clarification. This is through the connection between these nodes as well as their connections.
Weaknesses of Actor-Network Theory
One of the main weaknesses of this theory lies on its inability to make a distinction between human beings and other objects. Many people views human beings as a unique creature that is very different from other animals and objects. By failing to draw a line between the human beings and other things, this theory contradicts a significant number of ideologies hence losing its effectiveness.
Another weakness of the actor-network theory is that it is a very difficult task to identify all the heterogeneous elements in an actor-network. The social network theory proposes that every actor in the network (either an object or a person) is equally important in the network. None of these components can be said to be more important than the other. This assumption is very critical as it compares human beings with objects.
This theory has also been criticized for its uniqueness of assigning agency to actors who are not human beings. It recognizes the presence of non-human objects in the network. There is a need to draw a line between human beings and other objects. For instance, it argues that the tables, students, and teachers are equally important in the network.
This theory has also been criticized for not taking into account the elements outside the realm of nodes and relations. In other words, it does not provide any space outside this framework. It does not allow anything to be outside the relations which are defined in the network. This theory has also been criticized on the point that it involves descriptions which are not useful since they make point.
Another weakness of this theory is based on its assumption that all the actors are equal in the network. This assumption does not recognize the possibility of power imbalances in the network. Most people have been arguing that people does not have the same moral status with machines or organizations and therefore should be differentiated from them.
Actor-network theory is also criticized for its value-neutral stand. The method has for long been challenged for not paying attention on the political and social context. By so doing, this theory undermines the efforts of having an effective political and social critique (Jones and Graham, 2003 p. 8).
Hence, this theory provides an analysis which contrasts the major ideologies like the government, patriarchy or the government. Therefore, there is a need for improvement on this theory in order to avoid such limitations.
Social Construction of Technology
Strengths of the theory of the Social Construction of Technology
One of the strengths of this theory is that it recognizes the importance of human actions in shaping the technology. This is unlike in the actor-network theory where human superiority is ignored. This aspect has significantly contributed in the effectiveness of this theory. This is because human activities have played an important role in shaping their environment.
Another advantage of SCOT is that it can be a methodology. In other words, it gives the principles and steps to follow in case someone wants to find out the causes of successes or failures of a particular technology.
Weaknesses of the theory of the Social Construction of Technology
Despite of these strengths associated with the social construction, it suffers some limitations.
One of the main weaknesses of this method is that it overemphasizes on social impact on technology hence ignoring the significance of the physical world. It is necessary to recognize the fact that the physical world constraints our actions in one way or another.
This theory has not made any attempt to explain such influence. This theory assumes that the human beings shapes the technology and notes the fact that technology can never shape the human beings.
This theory gives a clear explanation of how technologies come up. However, this method fails to identify the consequences of the technology after the fact. Therefore, this theory does not explain how such technological developments fit in the broader social context. Thus, there is a need to improve on this theory by considering the consequences of new developments in technology.
This theory fails to recognize the groups which do not take part in construction of technology process. However, these people are significantly affected by these developments. The theory recognizes only the groups which play a role in constructing technology. Such ignorance has undermined the effectiveness of this theory.
Another shortcoming of the social construction theory is that it is viewed as a form of social determinism. It pays more attention to the social factors hence ignoring other important factors which may also have a significant impact on the technological development.
This theory does not take any stand and it does not propose any judgment on the importance of different interpretations of technology. By failing to take any such stance, this theory proves impotent in solving important controversies on the role of technology in human activities.
Finally, this theory is also criticized on the basis that it fails to analyze deeply on the factors which influences technological choice. For instance, this theory only focuses on the influence of interests, immediate needs and problems on technological choice. It fails to recognize the impact of economic, cultural, or intellectual choices regarding technology.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this discussion has clearly brought other differences between the actor-network theory and the social construction of the technology. This discussion has revealed that the main differences between these two theories are based on the fact that the actor-network theory fails to draw a difference between the human beings and other objects.
It treats all the elements in the network as equal. That is, none of the members in the network is more important than the other. This is also a primary weakness of this method.
These differences determine the effectiveness of each. The actor-network theory is criticized for failing to draw a distinction between the human beings and other elements in the network. On the other hand, the theory of social construction of technology has been criticized for overemphasizing the role of human beings in shaping technology hence ignoring the importance of the other elements in shaping technology.
Reference List
Anonymous. (2009). Social Construction of Technology (SCOT). Web.
Bakardjieva, M. (2005). Internet Society: The Internet in Everyday Life. London: SAGE.
Jones, B. and Graham, J. (2003). Actor-Network Theory: A Tool to Support Ethical Analysis of Commercial Genetic Testing. Web.
Prinsloo, M. & Baynham, M. (2008). Literalises, Global And Local. Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.