Search results

Institutional ethnography (IE) is a sociology that focuses on the everyday world as problematic. As a theory/method of discovery, it focuses on how the work people do is organized and coordinated by text-mediated and text-regulated social organization. Actor-network Theory (ANT) is a theory/method that is concerned with how realities get enacted. ANT focuses on a multiplicity of human and nonhuman actors (e.g., computers, documents, and laboratory equipment) and how the relations between them are constituted and how they are made to hang together to create certain realities. In this chapter, we discuss some of the similarities and differences between IE and ANT. We begin with an overview of IE and ANT and focus on their ontological and epistemological “shifts.” We then discuss some of the similarities and differences between IE and ANT, particularly from an IE stance. In doing so, we put these approaches into dialog and allude to some of the potential benefits and pitfalls of combining these approaches.

This chapter falls into two parts. The first offers a theoretical overview of three actor perspectives on issues of development intervention: (a) activity theory, (b) actor-network theory and (c) actor-oriented interface analysis. The second provides an illustrated discussion of the usefulness of actor perspectives for understanding the encounters that take place between ‘development experts’ (local and foreign) and so-called ‘beneficiaries’. The argument draws upon ethnographic data relating to issues of development interface, actor identities, networks and discourse.

It is commonly accepted that the study of urban politics has become increasingly complex and fragmented, characterised by a shift away from formal local government structures to a diverse range of public, private and voluntary agencies. The analysis of ‘multi-level’ local governance (Stoker, 2004) in contemporary urban societies therefore requires a need to focus on informal relationships as well as formal institutions, acknowledging the role of a multiplicity of actors and their interactions within partnership and network structures. In this respect the limitations of a purely quantitative methodology have been well-documented, including a lack of depth, insufficient attention to power relationships and an inability to account for symbolic action (see, e.g. Silverman, 2001 and other chapters in this collection). Qualitative methodologies offer the opportunity to consider meaning, complexity and institutional fragmentation in urban policy through detailed empirical and theoretical analysis. However, it is less clear what kinds of theoretical tools are most appropriate to underpin effective qualitative research. The purpose of this chapter is not only to suggest a general approach (that of social constructionism), but also to demonstrate how recent developments can be applied effectively to overcome some of the criticisms of constructionist social theory. The chapter suggests a number of approaches that can provide a means by which contemporary urban processes can be systematically interpreted.