Reflections on actor-network theory, governance networks, and strategic outcomes

Ludmilla Meyer Montenegro,Sergio Bulgacov

doi:10.1590/s1807-76922014000100007

Ludmilla Meyer Montenegro, Sergio Bulgacov

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1590/s1807-76922014000100007

Copy DOI

Abstract

In an attempt to instigate discussion in the areas of organizational studies and strategy, this essay focuses on themes related to Governance, Actor-Network Theory, and Strategic Outcomes. We seek to expand understanding of the Governance Network Theory by proposing the inclusion of human and non-human actors from the Actor-Network Theory in its scope. Recent studies concerning the notion of heterogeneous networks have demonstrated the importance of non-human actors for understanding social and organizational phenomena. When combined with a network perspective, strategy is seen as something that people within organizations do and not something that organizations have (Johnson, Langley, Melin, & Whittington, 2007). Networks require interaction, movement, and process; i.e., the active participation of actors involved. Decision making and activities are continuously realized based on the ties between actors and the content they deal with. We believe that this theoretical framework will reveal aspects and issues taken for granted that should be incorporated in the Governance Network Theory's empirical scope of analysis, primarily for research in plural and complex organizations permeated with ambiguous and power-related issues.

Highlights

We suggest that the governance network theory is made more robust if non-human actors are included in its theoretical scope (Latour, 1994a, 1996b, 2000, 2001, 2005)
Rosa and Santos (2006) explain that many practices consist of mutually stable relationships between human agents and different objects
Which has weight, is the subject-object relationship. These same authors assert that movement, continuity and fluidity are characteristics inherent to both strategy as social practice, where the focus is on the process, and in the assumptions of the Actor-Network Theory, since this theory pays close attention to the idea of movement

Summary

Introduction

This essay’s objective is to develop a deeper understanding of governance (its mechanisms and networks) and strategic outcomes, based upon governance network theory (Rhodes, 1997, 2007), strategic outcomes (Bulgacov, Souza, Prohmann, Coser, & Baraniuk, 2007; Matitz, 2009), strategy as practice (Golsorkhi, Rouleau, Seidl, & Vaara, 2010; Johnson, Langley, Melin, & Whittington, 2007), and Actor-Network Theory (Latour, 1994a, 1994b, 1996a, 2000, 2001, 2005; Law, 1992; Wessells, 2007). Recent statements by various authors (Hirst & Thompson, 1995; Sorensen & Torfing, 2005) show that it doesn’t make sense to turn back, revise questioning, or reconstruct the initial concept of government At this moment what seems crucial to understanding this movement is to try to identify and comprehend these networks, map the governance mechanisms involved, and define the public and private actors that participate, all through empirical research. The Actor-Network Theory doesn’t just assert that objects do things instead of human actors, it says that no social science can even begin without inquiry into who and what participates in actions. For Law (1992): “an actor is a patterned network of heterogeneous relations, or an effect produced by such a network” (p. 5)

Actor Networks

Symmetry

Translation