Using ANT as ethos and method
Hi all I'm working on a graduate project that explores the controversies and understandings of MMO gaming as valid leisure. I'm curious what is it about MMO gaming that results in it being viewed as geeky, strange, "luser-ish", etc. I've been struck by the ways in which MMO gamers themselves, as well as everday non-gaming folks and mass media reportage (outside of financial reports!) seem to accept that MMO gaming is somehow a type of strange and suspect pursuit. I've long been intrigued with the work of Bruno Latour and others from SST and material culture studies who use an Actor-Network Theory (ANT) approach to studying the world and its phenomenon. I am drawn to the ethos of ANT which flattens the divide between researcher and the researched, and which advocates jettisoning old notions of society and "the social", and the old (artificial?) divides between micro/macro, structure/individual, power/domination etc. in the interests of letting the actions tell the story of the results. I'm equlally drawn but intimidated by the methods built into ANT -- the mapping of actors and connections and associations. I'm trying to convince a reluctant adviser that an ANT approach is a valid way of studying my research question. Given the digital focus and the desire to use ANT as ethos and method, as well as the ways in which ANT approaches study and fieldwork, I'm having a rough go of it. I'm wondering if any of you are using ANT or have used it in the past for qualitiative research purposes (e.g. virtual ethnography; findings reporting; etc.). If you have done so in the past, are in the midst of doing so now or are at least intrigued by the possibilities, I'd be interested in talking with you off-list. Thanks. Tamara Paradis tparadis@connect.carleton.ca tsparadis@gmail.com Carleton University - Sociology & Anthropology Ottawa, ON, Canada
On Feb 10, 2009, at 10:14 AM, Tamara Paradis wrote:
Hi all
I'm working on a graduate project that explores the controversies and understandings of MMO gaming as valid leisure. I'm curious what is it about MMO gaming that results in it being viewed as geeky, strange, "luser- ish", etc. I've been struck by the ways in which MMO gamers themselves, as well as everday non-gaming folks and mass media reportage (outside of financial reports!) seem to accept that MMO gaming is somehow a type of strange and suspect pursuit.
I've long been intrigued with the work of Bruno Latour and others from SST and material culture studies who use an Actor-Network Theory (ANT) approach to studying the world and its phenomenon. I am drawn to the ethos of ANT which flattens the divide between researcher and the researched, and which advocates jettisoning old notions of society and "the social", and the old (artificial?) divides between micro/macro, structure/individual, power/domination etc. in the interests of letting the actions tell the story of the results. I'm equlally drawn but intimidated by the methods built into ANT -- the mapping of actors and connections and associations.
actually ANT is not a method, it is just a way of thinking about methods. The methods usually employed are ethnography, network analysis, discourse analysis, citation analysis, and semiotics, much of the terminology of ANT comes from semiotics.
I'm trying to convince a reluctant adviser that an ANT approach is a valid way of studying my research question.
If you are studying the ways things in networks mould and affect the network, then ANT is a good theory to have under your belt. However, when you start to talk about systems like media and reporting, ANT loses power, it is interested in the singular objects and the systems of objects/subjects, not the system itself. So for instance, you could use ANT to easily discuss how certain elements of the MMO interfaces recruit users and provide translations of various meanings to users. You can't really use it to talk about 'newspapers', you can use it to talk about a story in a newspaper that convinced 3 people to contact 6 other people, and those people were confronted by people who understood the story differently and to describe the relationships between signs, the object(newspaper story) and the various individual to tell a story about how the tensions in the groups developed due to different interpretations of the singular object. Then you could add more to that story....
Given the digital focus and the desire to use ANT as ethos and method, as well as the ways in which ANT approaches study and fieldwork, I'm having a rough go of it. I'm wondering if any of you are using ANT or have used it in the past for qualitiative research purposes (e.g. virtual ethnography; findings reporting; etc.). If you have done so in the past, are in the midst of doing so now or are at least intrigued by the possibilities, I'd be interested in talking with you off-list.
I use ANT as a way to think about objects/subjects and relationships, but I tend not to say ANT, I also tend to argue about ANT a fair amount, so take the above with a grain of salt. most people who work with ANT will tell you that they stopped using it in the 90's and they are definitely working in an age that is past, after, beyond ANT. I tend to recommend reading John Law's recent works on this and Latour's recent works, Reassembling the Social and Politics of Nature, which are all works, I'd argue, of 'after-ANT' .
Thanks.
Tamara Paradis tparadis@connect.carleton.ca tsparadis@gmail.com Carleton University - Sociology & Anthropology Ottawa, ON, Canada _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Hello, Tamara. As Jeremy has already said, ANT isn't a method, but a way to think about reality. One of it's main features is that it sees not difference between human and nonhuman actors in the network (or rather worknet) of interaction. This feature is also called "symmetrical anthropology". But I wanted to talk about another problem with this "paradigm" in sociological thought. Latour represents the "ontological" branch of "sociology of everyday life" which derives from Shutz's idea of "multiple realities". Like Shutz, he considered that there is one paramount reality and others to be of second order. Like in "Nine Princes of Amber" by Roger Zelazny, where there were only one real Amber and other places, worlds and realities were simply it's reflections. So, the problem for your research here is that from that point of view, any kind of MMO will be "realities of second order" by default. And respectively any activity in this reality will be automatically considered to be "activity of second order". The same is for players - that's why they'll seem to be geeks and loosers. To avoid this problem, I think that you should use another paradigm of theorizing about everyday interaction (or microsociology if you wish) - it's frame analysis by Erving Goffman. From Goffman's point of view, there is no "paramount reality" and even a dream or delirium can be scrutinized sociologically. I hope this thoughts will seem somehow usefull. Best wishes, Alexander. -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Tamara Paradis Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 6:15 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-L] Using ANT as ethos and method Hi all I'm working on a graduate project that explores the controversies and understandings of MMO gaming as valid leisure. I'm curious what is it about MMO gaming that results in it being viewed as geeky, strange, "luser-ish", etc. I've been struck by the ways in which MMO gamers themselves, as well as everday non-gaming folks and mass media reportage (outside of financial reports!) seem to accept that MMO gaming is somehow a type of strange and suspect pursuit. I've long been intrigued with the work of Bruno Latour and others from SST and material culture studies who use an Actor-Network Theory (ANT) approach to studying the world and its phenomenon. I am drawn to the ethos of ANT which flattens the divide between researcher and the researched, and which advocates jettisoning old notions of society and "the social", and the old (artificial?) divides between micro/macro, structure/individual, power/domination etc. in the interests of letting the actions tell the story of the results. I'm equlally drawn but intimidated by the methods built into ANT -- the mapping of actors and connections and associations. I'm trying to convince a reluctant adviser that an ANT approach is a valid way of studying my research question. Given the digital focus and the desire to use ANT as ethos and method, as well as the ways in which ANT approaches study and fieldwork, I'm having a rough go of it. I'm wondering if any of you are using ANT or have used it in the past for qualitiative research purposes (e.g. virtual ethnography; findings reporting; etc.). If you have done so in the past, are in the midst of doing so now or are at least intrigued by the possibilities, I'd be interested in talking with you off-list. Thanks. Tamara Paradis tparadis@connect.carleton.ca tsparadis@gmail.com Carleton University - Sociology & Anthropology Ottawa, ON, Canada _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
But I wanted to talk about another problem with this "paradigm" in sociological thought. Latour represents the "ontological" branch of "sociology of everyday life" which derives from Shutz's idea of "multiple realities".
do you have a cite for that? It is not a part of the story that I know, I must have missed it.
It's a part of my mentor's dissertation about Erving Hoffman's "Frame analysis" and course called "Sociology of everyday life". It's in Russian and I'm not sure whether it was translated into English. Perhaps, he says something in his article "Remembering Irving Hoffman", but I couldn't find it online, only this hyperlink to the contents (http://wciom.com/library/monitoring-journal/previous-issues/no-3-83-2007.ht ml). But I can retell you the logic. There are two branches in sociology of everyday life: "ontological" and "relative". The first one says, that there is only one "real" or paramount reality, and others are secondary to that one. This point of view is based on the Alfred Shutz's work " On Multiple Realities". The other point suggests that each "reality" has equal status. This is Erving Hoffman's position in "Frame Analysis". Something like that. Best wishes, Alexander. -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of jeremy hunsinger Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 7:39 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-L] Using ANT as ethos and method
But I wanted to talk about another problem with this "paradigm" in sociological thought. Latour represents the "ontological" branch of "sociology of everyday life" which derives from Shutz's idea of "multiple realities".
do you have a cite for that? It is not a part of the story that I know, I must have missed it. _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Hey all! Fascinating discussion. I've recently starting reading about ANT and have been toying with the idea of analyzing how a raid in WoW works through an ANT lens, though I am unsure what it'll get me more than using distributed cognition (Hutchins) or just simply describing the learning arrangement between various humans and nonhumans to get the job done. I guess my problem with ANT is that it seems boundless in terms of macro vs. micro analysis. As has been mentioned, an actor network can be made up of actor networks. Where does one start? So, for example, I have a 40 person raid group that learns to kill a boss over several weeks. It seems like each person should be considered an actor that had to be translated into the network. We've also collectively used certain addons and tools within the game to help us manage cognitive load and to make transparent some of the underworkings of the game. Does each of these addons get counted? Does each iteration of an addon get counted (40 people running the same addon in slightly different ways, positioned on the screen differently, paying attention to different parts of the addon, etc.)? Do specific functions of the addon get separated as individual actors? Do different elements of the UI get separated? To back up, do specific people get broken down to mind-body-fingers? Latour (writing as Johnson) briefly mentions that a door closer, an actor that's been delegated the task of making a hole back into a wall, can be further broken down into the mechanisms in the whole object (egs. a spring, a metal cylinder). Is it completely arbitrary where a researcher draws the line? In Reassembling the Social, Latour emphasizes tracing associations, which is possibly an answer to my above questions. I could concentrate on describing practice in the raid activity as I see it (which is pretty much what I've been doing for a while now), but pay particular attention to describing the functions of specific things as they relate to other things. Do this as they come up. In turn, these associations lead to other things that come up. Is that no longer considered ANT but after-ANT? Is it more useful to describe cognition and memory and material resources within an entity a la dcog than use ANT? (Though my prob with dcog is more that it seems like a snapshot-in-time where I am trying to document the change in practice. ANT seems like it inherently considers instability and change through the act of translation.) Is ANT reserved for bigger arguments about societal relationships? About translation being the leveraging or convincing of other actors to share tasks? Or maybe a dcog analysis is the way to use an ANT lens using my ethnographic mehod... Lots of questions. Maybe better suited to a blog post, as I'm just throwing ideas out there without much experience with ANT and such... But I thought I'd throw them out since it seems to that me the fastest way to learn something is to make transparent what you don't know. And my digital ears perked up when I saw Tamara's first message in this thread. ANT and MMOGs! thanks, mark -- Mark Chen | PhD Candidate | Games ethnographer/researcher Ed Tech/Learning Sciences | University of Washington - Seattle My games research and life in academia blog: markdangerchen.net
Dear Tamara, I'm running a research project "Sense-making and user-driven innovation in Virtual Worlds" from 2008-2011 http://worlds.ruc.dk/index.php, and in the project description one of the basic theoretical references is to actor-network theory - and I agree with Jeremy about the after-ANT approach ;-). This autumn, I presented a paper (work-in-progess) at the ECREA conference in Barcelona with an analyses of innovation based on the idea of the tensions between programs and anti-programs (Latour 1991), and last week I submitted an article to the Nordic journal MediaCulture with reference to the concepts of intermediaries and mediators (Latour 2005). The abstract is as follows: "Over the past five years, millions of actors have perceived it as meaningful to move in and settle down in the Metaverse, either as an adventurous shaman in an advanced role-playing game such as EverQuest or as a businesswoman in the social world of Second Life. In this article, the main question therefore is: how do the actors and gamers of the two types of virtual worlds make sense of their avatars and the worlds when they act and communicate using their avatars as personal mediators? Participatory observations inspired by virtual ethnography and in-depth video-interviews have been conducted to answer the question. The analysis of the substantial amount of empirical data draws on the concepts of intermediaries and mediators from actor-network theory (Latour, 1991, 1998, 2005), Sense-Making methodology (Dervin et al., 2003), social-psychology (Yee, 2006), and experimental economics (Bloomfield, 2008). It is shown, how the actors create a personal story and history of their avatar that transforms them into the mediators of being in the virtual world, and also how the avatars act as the mediators that transform the actors themselves. To identify, understand, and keep track of the many transformations of meaning, Nick Yee’s motivation factors (relationships, immersion, achievement, escapism, and manipulation) have proven helpful also to the analysis of a social world like Second Life. In future studies, it is recommended that we study further the sense-makings of motivation factors such as creativity and experimentation." If you are interested, I'll email the article to you. Sisse ;-) Tamara Paradis wrote:
Hi all
I'm working on a graduate project that explores the controversies and understandings of MMO gaming as valid leisure. I'm curious what is it about MMO gaming that results in it being viewed as geeky, strange, "luser-ish", etc. I've been struck by the ways in which MMO gamers themselves, as well as everday non-gaming folks and mass media reportage (outside of financial reports!) seem to accept that MMO gaming is somehow a type of strange and suspect pursuit.
I've long been intrigued with the work of Bruno Latour and others from SST and material culture studies who use an Actor-Network Theory (ANT) approach to studying the world and its phenomenon. I am drawn to the ethos of ANT which flattens the divide between researcher and the researched, and which advocates jettisoning old notions of society and "the social", and the old (artificial?) divides between micro/macro, structure/individual, power/domination etc. in the interests of letting the actions tell the story of the results. I'm equlally drawn but intimidated by the methods built into ANT -- the mapping of actors and connections and associations.
I'm trying to convince a reluctant adviser that an ANT approach is a valid way of studying my research question. Given the digital focus and the desire to use ANT as ethos and method, as well as the ways in which ANT approaches study and fieldwork, I'm having a rough go of it. I'm wondering if any of you are using ANT or have used it in the past for qualitiative research purposes (e.g. virtual ethnography; findings reporting; etc.). If you have done so in the past, are in the midst of doing so now or are at least intrigued by the possibilities, I'd be interested in talking with you off-list.
Thanks.
Tamara Paradis tparadis@connect.carleton.ca tsparadis@gmail.com Carleton University - Sociology & Anthropology Ottawa, ON, Canada _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
-- Sisse Siggaard Jensen, associate professor, Ph. D. SL avatarname: Chenet Shan, SL Island: Research Island Denmark Department for Communication, Business, and Informations Technologies Research group: Knowledge production and communication forms Research project: Sense-making and innovation in virtual worlds P.O. Box 260, DK-4000 Roskilde sisse@ruc.dk, http://worlds.ruc.dk/ + 4674 3771, +45 2092 6094; Skype: sisse.siggaard.jensen
Hi Tamara, I'm also currently working with ANT as part of a PhD thesis into the co-constitution of young children's websites. Like others on the list have said, ANT is not necessarily satisfactory as a method/theory unto itself and i've been considering how it can be combined with a number of different areas of theory (childhood studies, new media studies, socio-spatial theory) and different methods. I definitely feel that ANT has something to offer studies of old and new media, away from the buzzword of 'network'. I've been interested in mapping associations between a heterogeneous range of actors (children, designers/developers), technologies (design software, hardware etc) and social spaces (websites, virtual worlds, bedrooms, design offices etc). In terms of flattening the divide, i would be cautious not to take this as face value and I think a more practical approach would be to take a reflexive approach to relations. As in my own case, acknowledging that the voice of children often come from a position of marginal power and reflecting on how they come to be translated by design teams and also through research (such as my own). You talk about how the pursuit of MMO gaming is treated as a socially maligned form of leisure and I think that ANT would have the potential to help you understand how this activity becomes framed as such (especially when it may not be significantly different to other forms of activity which receive less social prejudice). These were just a few ideas I had when considering your post. I'll be happy to talk off list further about ANT if you wish. Good luck with the research. Liam -- Liam Berriman PhD Student Department of Sociology Goldsmiths, University of London New Cross London SE14 6NW On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Tamara Paradis <tsparadis@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all
I'm working on a graduate project that explores the controversies and understandings of MMO gaming as valid leisure. I'm curious what is it about MMO gaming that results in it being viewed as geeky, strange, "luser-ish", etc. I've been struck by the ways in which MMO gamers themselves, as well as everday non-gaming folks and mass media reportage (outside of financial reports!) seem to accept that MMO gaming is somehow a type of strange and suspect pursuit.
I've long been intrigued with the work of Bruno Latour and others from SST and material culture studies who use an Actor-Network Theory (ANT) approach to studying the world and its phenomenon. I am drawn to the ethos of ANT which flattens the divide between researcher and the researched, and which advocates jettisoning old notions of society and "the social", and the old (artificial?) divides between micro/macro, structure/individual, power/domination etc. in the interests of letting the actions tell the story of the results. I'm equlally drawn but intimidated by the methods built into ANT -- the mapping of actors and connections and associations.
I'm trying to convince a reluctant adviser that an ANT approach is a valid way of studying my research question. Given the digital focus and the desire to use ANT as ethos and method, as well as the ways in which ANT approaches study and fieldwork, I'm having a rough go of it. I'm wondering if any of you are using ANT or have used it in the past for qualitiative research purposes (e.g. virtual ethnography; findings reporting; etc.). If you have done so in the past, are in the midst of doing so now or are at least intrigued by the possibilities, I'd be interested in talking with you off-list.
Thanks.
Tamara Paradis tparadis@connect.carleton.ca tsparadis@gmail.com Carleton University - Sociology & Anthropology Ottawa, ON, Canada _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
I think we have to be very careful with ANT. ANT does not really support critique or critical sociology ala bourdieu's reflexivity. Reflexivity for ANT means something entirely different and unrelated to power(more like acting in a way to bring about actions you expect or knowing one's relationships in the network of actions). Power is not a concept for actor-network, it doesn't talk about power, it talks about who acts, where acting is something that objects can do as much as subjects. If you are interested in framing and power, you are doing something other than ANT. Translation though is a big point of Callon's ANT, but it is different from framing because it is specifically an act that enables the recruitment of others to the network. Alexander pointed out a key idea of ANT which is the symmetry principle. The symmetry principle rules out the analysis of power and domination. You can read about the symmetry principle and its origin in "The Social Construction of Technological Systems" . This is not to say one can't introduce domination, power and reflexivity in relation to power into one's analysis, but i think then you are definitely doing something beyond ANT.
In terms of flattening the divide, i would be cautious not to take this as face value and I think a more practical approach would be to take a reflexive approach to relations. As in my own case, acknowledging that the voice of children often come from a position of marginal power and reflecting on how they come to be translated by design teams and also through research (such as my own). You talk about how the pursuit of MMO gaming is treated as a socially maligned form of leisure and I think that ANT would have the potential to help you understand how this activity becomes framed as such (especially when it may not be significantly different to other forms of activity which receive less social prejudice). These were just a few ideas I had when considering your post. I'll be happy to talk off list further about ANT if you wish.
Good luck with the research.
Liam
-- Liam Berriman PhD Student Department of Sociology Goldsmiths, University of London New Cross London SE14 6NW
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Tamara Paradis <tsparadis@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all
I'm working on a graduate project that explores the controversies and understandings of MMO gaming as valid leisure. I'm curious what is it about MMO gaming that results in it being viewed as geeky, strange, "luser-ish", etc. I've been struck by the ways in which MMO gamers themselves, as well as everday non-gaming folks and mass media reportage (outside of financial reports!) seem to accept that MMO gaming is somehow a type of strange and suspect pursuit.
I've long been intrigued with the work of Bruno Latour and others from SST and material culture studies who use an Actor-Network Theory (ANT) approach to studying the world and its phenomenon. I am drawn to the ethos of ANT which flattens the divide between researcher and the researched, and which advocates jettisoning old notions of society and "the social", and the old (artificial?) divides between micro/macro, structure/individual, power/domination etc. in the interests of letting the actions tell the story of the results. I'm equlally drawn but intimidated by the methods built into ANT -- the mapping of actors and connections and associations.
I'm trying to convince a reluctant adviser that an ANT approach is a valid way of studying my research question. Given the digital focus and the desire to use ANT as ethos and method, as well as the ways in which ANT approaches study and fieldwork, I'm having a rough go of it. I'm wondering if any of you are using ANT or have used it in the past for qualitiative research purposes (e.g. virtual ethnography; findings reporting; etc.). If you have done so in the past, are in the midst of doing so now or are at least intrigued by the possibilities, I'd be interested in talking with you off-list.
Thanks.
Tamara Paradis tparadis@connect.carleton.ca tsparadis@gmail.com Carleton University - Sociology & Anthropology Ottawa, ON, Canada _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http:// aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
2009/2/10 jeremy hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu>:
I think we have to be very careful with ANT. ANT does not really support critique or critical sociology ala bourdieu's reflexivity. Reflexivity for ANT means something entirely different and unrelated to power(more like acting in a way to bring about actions you expect or knowing one's relationships in the network of actions).
True. Reflexivity in ANT is not about power. Thought, I think that with reflexivity they mean that you should be able to apply your explanation to sociology itself. This is in David Bloor Knowledge and Social Imagery - "strong programme" Power is not a concept for
actor-network, it doesn't talk about power, it talks about who acts, where acting is something that objects can do as much as subjects. If you are interested in framing and power, you are doing something other than ANT.
False. Latour says somewhere that power is not the "cause" of actor-netwroking, but the "result" of actor-networking He refers in some early works to Machiavelli to discuss this...for example http://www.bruno-latour.fr/articles/article/036.html S.
Translation though is a big point of Callon's ANT, but it is different from framing because it is specifically an act that enables the recruitment of others to the network. Alexander pointed out a key idea of ANT which is the symmetry principle. The symmetry principle rules out the analysis of power and domination. You can read about the symmetry principle and its origin in "The Social Construction of Technological Systems" .
This is not to say one can't introduce domination, power and reflexivity in relation to power into one's analysis, but i think then you are definitely doing something beyond ANT.
In terms of flattening the divide, i would be cautious not to take this as face value and I think a more practical approach would be to take a reflexive approach to relations. As in my own case, acknowledging that the voice of children often come from a position of marginal power and reflecting on how they come to be translated by design teams and also through research (such as my own). You talk about how the pursuit of MMO gaming is treated as a socially maligned form of leisure and I think that ANT would have the potential to help you understand how this activity becomes framed as such (especially when it may not be significantly different to other forms of activity which receive less social prejudice). These were just a few ideas I had when considering your post. I'll be happy to talk off list further about ANT if you wish.
Good luck with the research.
Liam
-- Liam Berriman PhD Student Department of Sociology Goldsmiths, University of London New Cross London SE14 6NW
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Tamara Paradis <tsparadis@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all
I'm working on a graduate project that explores the controversies and understandings of MMO gaming as valid leisure. I'm curious what is it about MMO gaming that results in it being viewed as geeky, strange, "luser-ish", etc. I've been struck by the ways in which MMO gamers themselves, as well as everday non-gaming folks and mass media reportage (outside of financial reports!) seem to accept that MMO gaming is somehow a type of strange and suspect pursuit.
I've long been intrigued with the work of Bruno Latour and others from SST and material culture studies who use an Actor-Network Theory (ANT) approach to studying the world and its phenomenon. I am drawn to the ethos of ANT which flattens the divide between researcher and the researched, and which advocates jettisoning old notions of society and "the social", and the old (artificial?) divides between micro/macro, structure/individual, power/domination etc. in the interests of letting the actions tell the story of the results. I'm equlally drawn but intimidated by the methods built into ANT -- the mapping of actors and connections and associations.
I'm trying to convince a reluctant adviser that an ANT approach is a valid way of studying my research question. Given the digital focus and the desire to use ANT as ethos and method, as well as the ways in which ANT approaches study and fieldwork, I'm having a rough go of it. I'm wondering if any of you are using ANT or have used it in the past for qualitiative research purposes (e.g. virtual ethnography; findings reporting; etc.). If you have done so in the past, are in the midst of doing so now or are at least intrigued by the possibilities, I'd be interested in talking with you off-list.
Thanks.
Tamara Paradis tparadis@connect.carleton.ca tsparadis@gmail.com Carleton University - Sociology & Anthropology Ottawa, ON, Canada _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
-- Stop the numbers game http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1297797.1297815 http://portal.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=1297815&type=pdf&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE...
True. Reflexivity in ANT is not about power. Thought, I think that with reflexivity they mean that you should be able to apply your explanation to sociology itself.
This is in David Bloor Knowledge and Social Imagery - "strong programme"
That is the strong programme, i agree, which influences the symmetry principle of ANT, but ANT expands symmetry, well Callon's version does according to the book i mentioned. The Strong Programme's symmetry is less 'apply sociology to oneself' then 'all descriptions must be treated equally including the many possible stories of how the research was done' The latter implies the apply to sociology itself, i think.
Power is not a concept for
actor-network, it doesn't talk about power, it talks about who acts, where acting is something that objects can do as much as subjects. If you are interested in framing and power, you are doing something other than ANT.
False. Latour says somewhere that power is not the "cause" of actor-netwroking, but the "result" of actor-networking
but it is not in the analysis, it is after the analysis, it is conclusions. Power is, as such, just a description and can be described after one does the analysis symmetrically. It is something the researcher may concern oneself with, but only afterwards. One does not look for power 'in' the network or describe it 'in' the network, but 'from' the networks.
2009/2/10 jeremy hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu>:
True. Reflexivity in ANT is not about power. Thought, I think that with reflexivity they mean that you should be able to apply your explanation to sociology itself.
This is in David Bloor Knowledge and Social Imagery - "strong programme"
That is the strong programme, i agree, which influences the symmetry principle of ANT, but ANT expands symmetry, well Callon's version does according to the book i mentioned. The Strong Programme's symmetry is less 'apply sociology to oneself' then 'all descriptions must be treated equally including the many possible stories of how the research was done' The latter implies the apply to sociology itself, i think.
There is actually difference between "symmetry principle" and "reflexivity" principle. The first as you said is partly different between "Strong Programme" & ANT..although the latter draws on the former. Reflexivity, is another story: you should be able to apply your explanation to sociology itself. e.g. you should be able to use ANT to study ANT scholars as well in their actor-networking
Power is not a concept for
actor-network, it doesn't talk about power, it talks about who acts, where acting is something that objects can do as much as subjects. If you are interested in framing and power, you are doing something other than ANT.
False. Latour says somewhere that power is not the "cause" of actor-netwroking, but the "result" of actor-networking
but it is not in the analysis, it is after the analysis, it is conclusions. Power is, as such, just a description and can be described after one does the analysis symmetrically. It is something the researcher may concern oneself with, but only afterwards. One does not look for power 'in' the network or describe it 'in' the network, but 'from' the networks.
yes, but each node of the actor-network is an actor-network as well. So each node has power as consequence and each node can either: - succed in imposing a translation - i.e. impose its power - fail in imposing a translation - i.e. fail in imposing its power so I do not see where the problem is. You can use power in the analysis if you wish so. S.
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
-- Stop the numbers game http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1297797.1297815 http://portal.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=1297815&type=pdf&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE...
Reflexivity, is another story: you should be able to apply your explanation to sociology itself. e.g. you should be able to use ANT to study ANT scholars as well in their actor-networking
yes, that is true, that is in that same chapter i mentioned in Bijker and Hughes, i was just, as i am want to do, arguing with my own immediate perception instead of what is written on the page ;)
Hello all, I am looking for directions to research studies and reports that justify need for higher broadband speeds. There are lots of discussions going around the need for ultra-broadband, fibre networks, etc. in many countries. Some jurisdictions set up specific speed targets, for instance UK recently announced it's plan to provide universal broadband access at minimum speeds of 2 mbps. However, I have seen only few studies on technical review of those bandwidth heavy applications that require high-speeds. Further, what should be the justifiable bb speed targets to households for countries, like Canada, US, UK? Average speed, for Canada, according to OECD is around 7 Mbps.. Many experts suggest these days that the minimum speed should be 10 Mbps or above.. What online applications imply that? IPTV, on-line games, VC? Anything else? Any studies to support that? your help in finding relevant data is greatly appreciated.. Amon.
Hi Tamara, I found ANT useful when looking at user interface design, social software use, and disasters. I starting thinking about the concepts of technology and human agency, and tried out a new way of diagramming experience to help our designers re-think their interfaces. It worked well out in industry, and now I'm at a university researching these ideas further. ANT was a prominent player in my dissertation, which you can dig up: "Building an Interdisciplinary Framework for Experience Design: The Use of Social Software in the Aftermath of the London Bombings." I've also published two papers that focus on actor networks, social software, design, and disasters: Potts, L. (2009). "Designing for Disaster: Social Software Use in Times of Crisis." International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development. Potts, L. (2009). "Using Actor Network Theory to Trace and Improve Multimodal Communication Design." Technical Communication Quarterly. In this proceedings paper I look at diagramming and ANT: Potts, L. (2008). "Designing with Actor Network Theory: A New Method for Modeling Holistic Experience." Proceedings of the International Professional Communication Conference. Montreal: IEEE. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4610231 Hopefully, that can aid to your cause, along with all of the other great posts we've had on the topic. Feel free to contact me, as I'd love to discuss this further. Take care, Liza ______________________________ Liza Potts, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Professional Writing Old Dominion University English Department BAL 5020 Norfolk, VA 23529 757.683.3997 AIM: LizaPotts Skype: lkpotts On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Tamara Paradis <tsparadis@gmail.com>wrote:
Hi all
I'm working on a graduate project that explores the controversies and understandings of MMO gaming as valid leisure. I'm curious what is it about MMO gaming that results in it being viewed as geeky, strange, "luser-ish", etc. I've been struck by the ways in which MMO gamers themselves, as well as everday non-gaming folks and mass media reportage (outside of financial reports!) seem to accept that MMO gaming is somehow a type of strange and suspect pursuit.
I've long been intrigued with the work of Bruno Latour and others from SST and material culture studies who use an Actor-Network Theory (ANT) approach to studying the world and its phenomenon. I am drawn to the ethos of ANT which flattens the divide between researcher and the researched, and which advocates jettisoning old notions of society and "the social", and the old (artificial?) divides between micro/macro, structure/individual, power/domination etc. in the interests of letting the actions tell the story of the results. I'm equlally drawn but intimidated by the methods built into ANT -- the mapping of actors and connections and associations.
I'm trying to convince a reluctant adviser that an ANT approach is a valid way of studying my research question. Given the digital focus and the desire to use ANT as ethos and method, as well as the ways in which ANT approaches study and fieldwork, I'm having a rough go of it. I'm wondering if any of you are using ANT or have used it in the past for qualitiative research purposes (e.g. virtual ethnography; findings reporting; etc.). If you have done so in the past, are in the midst of doing so now or are at least intrigued by the possibilities, I'd be interested in talking with you off-list.
Thanks.
Tamara Paradis tparadis@connect.carleton.ca tsparadis@gmail.com Carleton University - Sociology & Anthropology Ottawa, ON, Canada _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
participants (9)
-
Alexander Semenov -
jeremy hunsinger -
Khakimov, Amonulla (MGS) -
Liam Berriman -
Liza Potts -
Mark Chen -
Sisse Siggaard Jensen -
Stefano De Paoli -
Tamara Paradis