Actor-Network Theory and Policy Study
An article in which I’ve utilized Actor-Network Theory (ANT): Koyama.2011. Journal of Education Policy
ACTOR-NETWORK THEORY
I draw upon actor-network theory (Latour, 1995, 2005) to examine the dynamic work and the relational links set in motion by the appropriation—commonly referred to as the formation and implementation—of educational policy and “to grasp the interactions (and disjunctions) between different sites or levels in policy processes” (Shore & Wright 1997: 14). The theory provides a way in which to follow the “continuous connections leading from one local interaction to the other places, times, and agencies…” (Latour 2005: 173). From the federal government, through state and district educational agencies, to individual schools, the provisions of federal educational policy, like No Child Left Behind (NCLB), are implemented through the actions of many. Such policy is not imposed in a linear fashion by the federal government onto schools. Rather, the appropriation of policy occurs though multiple vertical and horizontal interactions between private, school, state, district, and federal entities. To understand educational policy, we must examine these social interactions.
The interactions create linkages that develop into a network. The construction of the network begins with a situation that is deemed in need of solving—such as school failure or an achievement gap. To legitimize a federal policy solution, such as the ability of NCLB to increase the academic achievement of students (as measured by increased scores on standardized tests), the federal government must enroll other participants. During a period that Latour (2005) refers to as “a period of problematization,” the primary actor (NCLB) finds relevant actors (local educational agencies, test-makers, failing schools) and delegates representatives from groups of actors (principals, educational agency officials) into roles. The federal department of education uses multiple strategies to get participation from the actors; the most basic strategy in this case relies on mandating state and district participants that “no child should be left behind” by 2014. Actors, such as principals and local educational agencies, variably invest in their roles. Finally, a differentiated aligning of roles begins to emerge; actors mobilize, form associations, and construct their environments. They do what they can or must do to implement NCLB; in the process, other situations arise and the process begins again.
The cycle described above is referred to in actor network theory as “translation,” or the interpretation given by participants or “fact builders” of their interests and that of the people they enroll (Latour 1987). Through translation, actors associate with other actors to form joint vectors of agency. Translation is driven neither solely by the agency of an actor nor by “larger” forces. Actors from various agencies and organizations—who may not share aims, explicit interests, intentions, or regulations—form relationships that depend on multiple and repeated translations.
Further, the human actors do not act alone. Objects with subjective investments also become actors. The nonhuman actors in this study emerge when experiences are transcribed into artifacts bearing the imprint of their creators and then into fact (a discovery that comes to be accepted by the collective as established and often no longer controversial) (Taylor & Van Every 2000). Latour (2005) focuses on the transcription of findings, or production and validation of cultural texts like policies, in the context of social collectives. Policies, as object-actors, help human actors make some sense of how the federal mandates apply to them. By requiring specific kinds of actions, the trajectory of objects is traceable. Notably, in an emerging network, ‘non-local’ actors (like the federal government) become localized through object-actors (like NCLB policy, district reports, or standardized test scores) that circulate, assisting actors in the construction of competence to act. As actors and materials are sent from one local place to some other place, that which was global becomes part of the network and thus becomes vertically localized.
References:
Latour, Bruno.1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, Bruno.1999. On Recalling ANT. In Actor Network Theory and After. John Law and J Hassard, eds. Pp 15-25. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Latour, Bruno.2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shore, Cris and Susan Wright, eds. 1997. Anthropology of Policy: Critical Perspectives on Governance and Power. New York: Routledge.
Taylor, James R. and Elizabeth J. Van Every, eds.2000. The Emergent Organization: Communication as Its Site and Surface. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Hi Jill – Wonderful to find a full-fledged ANT study in policy. I am a PhD student in Australia (The University of Melbourne) looking at evidence-based policy making and attempting to develop a notion of policy as assemblage – and want to cite your work on NCLB in my lit review – has this been published somewhere or shall I just cite from the website?
Regards,
Radhika
Update: Radhika Gorur and I have now become linked through our multiple conversations and sharing of ANT articles. I hope to have a sample of her insightful work on PISA posted on this site soon. Jill
I can’t wait to read Jill’s wonderful dissertation:
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/presssite/metadata.epl?mode=synopsis&isbn=9780226451749