Readings :: Organizing Networks

Organizing Networks: An Actor-Network Theory of Organizations
By Andréa Belliger and David J. Krieger

I've continued my interest in actor-network theory (ANT), organizations, and sociological approaches, which first came together in my book Network. So when I saw this book in the library, I went ahead and picked it up.

This book was published in 2016, and it's definitely a product of its time, focusing on examples such as networked social movements, open educational resources, and open-source software. The authors' goal is to understand such networked organizations by using the concepts and terms of ANT. 

In contrast to networked organizations, "the networks we are talking about are the basic from of social and organizational order and not a particular way in which some traditional organizations might decide to work together. Based on ANT, the concept of network we propose is neither market, nor bureaucracy, nor a mixture of the two. Our aim is to offer a different theoretical foundation for talking about organizations as networks" (p.12). ANT, they say, is "fundamentally different from relational sociology. ANT has its basis in ethnography and science and technology studies and proposes a methodological symmetry between humans and non-humans. This clearly distinguishes ANT from relational sociology" (pp. 12-13). They add, "For actor-network theory, social space is flat and the whole is always less than the sum of the parts. Networks are scalable actors, and actors are always made up of many heterogeneous associations. In other words, the actor is the network. ... Following actor-network theory, we will portray organizations as processes of organizing in which heterogeneous actors, both human and non-human, are constantly negotiating and re-negotiating programs of action" (p.14).

Since "organizing is indistinguishable from activities of networking," they acknowledge that "it would probably be more appropriate not to speak of networks at all, but only of networking. ... when we use the word 'network,' we always understand this term to imply the activity of networking as it is defined by ANT." (p.15)

The authors, then, want to focus on processes rather than things or products. They nominate ANT as "the basis for a foundational theory of organizations that is not dependent on modern sociology" (p.17). In their approach, they argue, "ANT proposes a non-linguistic concept of communication. Not words, but things make the difference" (p.18). And in this approach, "Networking, [Weick's] sensemaking, [Goffman's] staging, and narrative all refer to the same process by which organizations are constructed, maintained, deconstructed, and transformed" (p.20). And "Making sense via enacted narrative is the kind of communication that constitutes organizations" (p.22).

With this introduction, they embark on five chapters.

Chapter 1 draws on Gibson to discuss technical mediation in terms of affordances. Here, tool and hand translate and enroll each other (p.34), and "The result of these links and interfaces, that is, the result of technical mediation, can be called an 'actor-network'" (p.35). In places, the authors sound almost Vygotskian: 

The episodic and very limited representational connection that determines how apes perceive and handle objects is broken and things remain with us even when we are no longer holding them in our hands. Big brains that can process links, that is, as cognitive science argues, outsource information into the environment, have an evolutionary advantage over those that cannot. Technical mediation is a motor of evolution. Technical mediation “translates” and “enrolls” animals and things into actor-networks, that is, associations in which different actors have different functions. These functions then become concerns, goals, or what ANT (Latour 1994: 33) calls “programs of action.” Goals, interests, concerns, or what traditional sociology has called “intentionality,” arise when both human and non-human actors are mutually translated and enrolled into programs of action. (p.37)

And "Only when things quite literally 'get out of hand' do they become part of a social world together with humans, take on an 'agency' of their own, and come to play their roles in those hybrid and heterogeneous networks of humans and non-humans that Latour calls 'actor-networks'" (p.39). They understand storytelling as "that form of language in which the assigning of roles and functions to actors in a meaningful series of events takes place" (p.42), and thus "the task of creating social order becomes a matter of information control or information design" (p.44). The authors conclude:

Organizing is not what happens, when people do things together, this is what monkeys also do, but when things quite literally “get out of hand” and yet still play roles and influence social relations. What makes organizations more than mere interaction, which monkeys also do, are the many non-humans that have been linked up to human activities in actor-networks. (p.50) 

In Chapter 2, the authors review Weick on sensemaking, covering these elements: retrospective accounts; perceptions of what counts as relevant; persuading others, resulting in a shared problem; developing plausibility and coherence of a story; interpretation rather than mirroring facts; sense making as ongoing activity. Weick's sensemaking became the cornerstone of "communicative constitution of organizations" (CCO). (p.55). They then review various models in CCO: McPhee and Zaug's four flows model (p.61), Taylor's imbrication (pp.67- 72), and Cooren's ventriloquism (pp.72- 76).

Chapter 3 brings them to Goffman's sociology of interaction. They declare that 

Our aim is not to be faithful to Goffman, but to explore the possibility that Goffman’s work can be faithful to ANT. ... Our goal in bringing Goffman into the story is to try to get a better grasp on how so-called face-to-face communication is dependent upon many actors both human and non-human who are not physically present at the moment of interaction, indeed, how meaning and sensemaking are enacted, embodied, extended, and embedded in networks. (pp.79-80)

Along the way, they identify several types of info control in staging: 1. identification 2. front 3. standardization 4. idealization 5. simplification 6. exclusion 7. selection and segregation of the audience 8. solidarity 9. mystification (p.93). And they summarize: 

Our claim is that insights gained from ANT and from Goffman’s dramaturgical theory of interaction provide a basis for understanding Weick’s “sensemaking” as constitutive of organizations in a way that extends and enriches the work done by the CCO school of thought. (p.102)

They want to make narrative "a foundational concept for a network theory of organizations," but not a version of narrative that buys into the subject-object split (pp.115-116). And "Networking, sensemaking, staging, and enacted narrative are different words for one thing, organizing" (p.136). So "Our claim is that the problem of the communicative constitution of organizations can be posed as the problem of localizing and globalizing narratives, that is, when narrative is theorized as networking, staging, and sensemaking." (p.144).

Chapter 4 turns to "the impact of new information and communication technologies (ICTs) on society" (p.148), following ANT's lead by "defining human social order in terms of 'technical mediation' ... and 'interobjectivity' (p.147). In opposition of seeing ICTs as technical infrastructure a la Castells (p.150) or flow of new media content a la Manovich (p.151), they focus on usage a la Benkler, Shirky, and Tapscott (p.151). The latter is the most ANT-relevant in their view, and they classify it under the social construction of technology (SCOT) (p.159). And they conclude, "Not persuasion, not manipulation of opinion, not hype, but authentic and transparent communication is what characterizes networks" (p.170). I'm not sure how this view squares with ANT, which seems pretty persuasion-focused, nor how persuasion is opposed to authenticity. 

In the final chapter, the authors "take a closer look at some of the more important trends and challenges that characterize organizing in the global network society." (p.173).  

So what did I think? To be honest, I had a hard time figuring out what this book was about. That is, I understood that the authors were interested in using ANT to understand organizations and organizing, and I understood that they wanted to compare/contrast with other frameworks sociologists use to examine organizations. I also saw their efforts to signpost the argument from one chapter to the next. But perhaps because I'm not a sociologist, I had difficulty understanding the stakes. Yes, we could understand organizations in terms of ANT. Yes, doing so would entail parting with established frameworks -- while still sticking close to a lot of what those frameworks already do well. 

But I was missing a compelling argument for contributions that (a) ANT uniquely brings to the discourse and that (b) entail a significant payoff. Even as an ANT enthusiast, I just didn't see the case being made effectively.

On the other hand, I learned a lot about other major frameworks in the sociology of organizations. I've made a lot of notes, which I think will lead to more reading into organizational sociology. So the broad review was helpful. 

Should you read this book? If you're interested in the sociology of organizations, this book overviews several frameworks and makes a case for ANT, and I think it's probably worth the price of admission.