Abstract
Actor network theory (ANT) and the later work of Latour on “due process” are used to gain insight into how a new technology, video teleconferencing, has been introduced to a petro-chemical company, Xeon. The hallmark of ANT is a symmetrical treatment of people and things in a single collective. The due process model moves into normative mode and offers the prospect of using ANT ideas to aid planning for the introduction ofnew technology. The due process model consists of four dimensions: perplexity, consultation, hierarchy, and institution. Facts and values are co produced through a series of trajectories. Perplexity and consultation are concerned with the issue of “how many are we,” while hierarchy and institution address the question “can we live together.” The application of these ideas to the Xeon case identifies a range ofactants and demonstrates the intensively socio-technical imbroglio that constitutes the provision of video teleconferencing facilities. The paper concludes by arguing that IS should consider how the due process might be designed and that an even-handed approach to human and non-human actors is a fruitful basis for this design.
The original version of this chapter was revised: The copyright line was incorrect. This has been corrected. The Erratum to this chapter is available at DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-35489-7_33
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
- Senior Manager
- Manage Information System
- Virtual Team
- Actor Network Theory
- Information System Development
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
References
Bowker, G., Timmermans, S., and Star, S. L. “Infrastructure and Organizational Transformation: Classifying Nurses’ Work,” in Information Technology and Changes in Organizational Work, W. Orlikowski, G. Walsham, M. Jones, and J. I. DeGross (eds.), London: Chapman and Hall, 1996.
Button, G. “The Curious Case of the Vanishing Technology,” in Technology in Working Order: Studies of Work, Interaction, and Technology, G. Button (ed.), London: Routledge, 1993.
Callon, M. “Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay,” in Power, Action and Belief, J. Law (ed.), London: Routledge and Keagan Paul, 1986, pp 196–233.
Callon, M. “Techno-Economic Networks and Irreversibility,” in A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology, and Domination, J. Law (ed.), London: Routledge, 1991, pp 132–161.
Ciborra, C. U. “Drifting: From Control to Drift,” in Planet Internet, K. Braa, C. Sorensen, and B. Dahlbom (eds.), Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur, 2000.
Ciborra, C. U. “Introduction: What Does Groupware Technology Mean for the Organizations Hosting It,” in Groupware and Teamwork: Invisible Aid or Technical Hindrance?, C. U. Ciborra (ed.), Chichester, England: John Wiley, 1996, pp. 1–19.
Freeman, R. E. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Marshfield, MA: Pitman, 1984. Giddens, A. The Constitution of Society, Cambridge, MA: Polity, 1994.
Goffman, E. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, London: Penguin, 1990.
Grint, K., and Woolgar, S. The Machine at Work: Technology, Work and Organization, Cambridge, MA: Polity Press, 1997.
Hepso, V. “The Involvement of Human and non Human Stakeholders: combining Actor Network Theory and Action Research,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Third IRIS, Copenhagen, Denmark, August 1999.
Jones, M. “Information Systems and the Double Mangle: Steering a Course Between the Scylla of Embedded Structure and the Charybdis of Strong Symmetry,” in Information Systems: Current Issues and Future Changes, T. J. Larsen, L. Levine, and J. I. DeGross (eds.), Laxenburg, Austria: IFIP Press, 1999, pp. 287–302.
Latour, B. Pandora’s Hope, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.
Latour, B. The Pasteurization of France, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984.
Latour, B. “The Politics of Explanation: An Alternative,” in Knowledge and Reflexivity: New Frontiers in the Sociology of Knowledge, S. Woolgar (ed.), Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1988.
Latour, B. “The Powers of Association,” in Power, Action and Belief, J. Law (ed.), London: Routledge and Keagan Paul, 1986, pp. 264–280.
Latour, B. Seminar Series, “Information Systems or Networks of Transformation?” and “The Politics of Nature,” given at the London School of Economics and Political Science, London, January- March, 1998.
Latour, B. Science in Action, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987.
Latour, B. “Technology is Society Made Durable,” in A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology, and Domination,J. Law (ed.), London: Routledge, 1991, pp. 103–131. Latour, B. We Have Never Been Modern,New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1993.
Law, J. “On the Methods of Long-Distance Control: Vessels, Navigation and the Portugese Route to India,” in Power, Action and Belief. A New Sociology of Knowledge?,J. Law (ed.), London: Routledge, 1986.
Lipnack, J., and Stampts, J. Virtual Teams: Reaching Across Space, Time and Organizations with Technology, New York: John Wiley, 1997.
Lyytinen, K. “Stakeholders, Information System Failures and Soft Systems Methodology: An Assessment,” Journal of Applied Systems Analysis (15), 1988, pp. 61–81.
Lyytinen, K., and Hirschheim, R. A. “Information Systems Failures: A Survey and Classification of the Empirical Literature,” Oxford Surveys in Information Technology (4), 1987, pp. 4, 258309.
McMaster, T., Vidgen, R., and Wastell, D. “Diffusion and Translation in Technology Transfer,” in Proceedings of the Second IFIP 8.6 Working Conference on Diffusion and Adoption of Information Technology, T. McMaster and D. Wastell (eds.), Ambleside, UK, May 14–17, 1997.
McMaster, T., Vidgen, R., and Wastell, D. “Networks of Association and `Due Process’ in IS Development,” in Information Systems: Current Issues and Future Changes, T. J. Larsen, L. Levine, and J. I. DeGross (eds.), Laxenburg, Austria: IFIP Press, 1999.
Mason, R., and Mitroff, I. Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions, New York: Wiley, 1981.
Monteiro, E., and Hanseth, O. “Social Shaping of Information Infrastructure: On Being Specific About the Technology,” in Information Technology and Changes in Organizational Work, W. Orlikowski, G. Walsham, M. Jones, and J. I. DeGross (eds.), London: Chapman and Hall, 1996.
Mumford, E. Effective Systems Design and Requirements Analysis,London: Macmillan, 1995. Orlikowski, W. J., and Baroudi, J. J. “Studying Information Technology in Organizations:
Research Approaches and Assumptions,“ Information Systems Research (2:1), 1991, pp. 1-
Research Approaches and Assumptions,“ Information Systems Research (2:1), 1991, pp. 1-
Pickering, A. The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency and Science, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.
Pinch, T. J., and Bijker, W. E. “The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other,” in The Social Construction of Technological Systems, W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, and T. Pinch (eds.), London: MIT Press, 1987, pp. 17–50.
Pouloudi, A., and Whitley, E. “Stakeholder Identification in Inter-organizational Systems: Gaining Insights for Drug Use Management Systems,” European Journal of Information Systems (6), 1997, pp. 1–14.
Rogers, E. M. Diffusion of Innovations (4’ Edition), New York: Free Press, 1995.
Thompson, I. “A Few Facts to Consider on Wind Turbine Issue,” The Stroud News and Journal, letters page, October 25, 2000.
Vidal, J. “Earth Will Get Hotter Than Expected,” The Guardian, October 27, 2000.
Vidgen, R., and McMaster, T. “Black Boxes, Non-human Stakeholders, and the Translation of IT Through Mediation,” in Information Technology and Changes in Organizational Work, W. Orlikowski, G. Walsham, M. Jones, and J. I. DeGross (eds.), London: Chapman and Hall, 1996.
Wal sham, G. “Actor Network Theory and IS Research: Current Status and Future Prospects,” in Information Systems and Qualitative Research, A. S. Lee, J. Liebenau and J. I. DeGross (eds.), London: Chapman and Hall, 1997, pp. 466–480.
Wal sham, G. Interpreting Information Systems in Organizations, Chichester, England: John-Wiley, 1993.
Whitley, E. “Habermas and the Non-humans: Towards a Critical Theory for the New Collective,” in Proceedings of the Critical Management Studies Conference,C. H. J. Gilson, I.Grugulis, and H.Willmott (eds.), Manchester School of Management, July 14–16, 1999 (http://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nzlejrot/crosconference/documents/Information%20Tech/ Habermas%20and%20the%20non-humans.pdt).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2001 IFIP International Federation for Information Processing
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Nandhakumar, J., Vidgen, R. (2001). Due Process and the Introduction of New Technology: The Institution of Video Teleconferencing. In: Russo, N.L., Fitzgerald, B., DeGross, J.I. (eds) Realigning Research and Practice in Information Systems Development. IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing, vol 66. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35489-7_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35489-7_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4757-6366-9
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-35489-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive