Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Organization Studies
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (4)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Whittle, A.
Right arrow Articles by Spicer, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Is Actor Network Theory Critique?

Andrea Whittle

Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University

André Spicer

Warwick Business School, University of Warwick

In this essai we debate the extent to which Actor Network Theory (ANT) provides a meaningful contribution to the body of critical theories of organization. Critical approaches are commonly associated with a denaturalizing ontology, a reflexive epistemology and an anti-performative politics. In contrast, we suggest that ANT relies on a naturalizing ontology, an un-reflexive epistemology and a performative politics. This does not completely dismiss ANT as a useful approach to studying organizations. It does however question the contribution of ANT to developing a critical theory of organization.

Key Words: Actor Network Theory • critical theory • organization theory

Organization Studies, Vol. 29, No. 4, 611-629 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/0170840607082223
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 OrganizationHome page
S. Woolgar, C. Coopmans, and D. Neyland
Does STS Mean Business?
Organization, January 1, 2009; 16(1): 5 - 30.
[PDF]

Home page
 OrganizationHome page
R. Zeiss and P. Groenewegen
Engaging Boundary Objects in OMS and STS? Exploring the Subtleties of Layered Engagement
Organization, January 1, 2009; 16(1): 81 - 100.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 OrganizationHome page
H. Willmott
Commentary: Science as Intervention: Recasting Weber's Moral Vision
Organization, January 1, 2009; 16(1): 143 - 153.
[PDF]