Actor-Network-Theory and Creativity Research

  • Gerald BartelsEmail author
  • Nicolas Bencherki
Living reference work entry



Gilles Deleuze (1998) defines creation as the making of configurations – a position close to that, say, of British philosopher Alfred N. Whitehead (see for example Cloots 2001). Studying creativity, therefore, can be understood as the study of the way new relations or connections are established between elements in order to make up new beings, bodies, concepts, products, or things – in the broadest sense of these words. For Deleuze, creativity is not an optional activity; it is instead a necessity: “A creator is not someone who works for pleasure. A creator only does what he absolutely needs” (p. 135). It is also a necessity because it is in the name of his/her creation that the creator may speak. In other words, the configurations that he/she builds consequently entangle and constitute him/her as a subject.

The study of creativity, therefore, is not only the observation of specific moments when people come up...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Akirch M, Latour B. A summary of a convenient vocabulary or the semiotics of human and non-human assemblies. In: Bijker WE, Law J, editors. Shaping technology – building society. Studies in sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1992.Google Scholar
  2. Alvesson M. De-essentializing the knowledge intensive firm: reflections on sceptical research going against the mainstream. J Manag Stud. 2011;48(7):1640–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker HS. Art as collective action. Am Sociol Rev. 1974;39(6):767–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker HS. Art worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1982.Google Scholar
  5. Bencherki N, Cooren F. Having to be: the possessive constitution of organization. Hum Relat. 2011;64(12):1579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bijker WE. Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs : toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1995.Google Scholar
  7. Callon M. The sociology of an actor-network: the case of the electric vehicle. In: Callon M, Law J, Rip A, editors. Mapping the dynamics of science and technology: sociology of science in the real world. Basingstoke: Macmillan; 1986a. p. 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Callon M. Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In: Law J, editor. Power, action and belief: a new sociology of knowledge? London: Routledge; 1986b. p. 196–223.Google Scholar
  9. Charrieras D. Trajectories, circulation, assemblages. The heterogeneous modes of endurance of digital arts practice in Montréal. Paper presented at the ISEA 2011; 2011.Google Scholar
  10. Christiansen JK, Varnes CJ. Making decisions on innovation: meetings or networks? Creat Innov Manag. 2007;16(3):282–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cloots A. The metaphysical significance of Whitehead’s creativity. Process Stud. 2001;30(1):36–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cooren F. The communicative achievement of collective minding. Manag Commun Q. 2004;17(4):517–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cooren F, Fairhurst GT. Local? Global? No, dislocal: how to scale up from interactions to organization. Paper presented at the the 54th conference of the International Communication Association; 2004.Google Scholar
  14. Cooren F, Fairhurst GT. Dislocation and stabilization: how to scale up from interactions to organization. In: Putnam LL, Nicotera AM, editors. Building theories of organization: the constitutive role of communication. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2009.Google Scholar
  15. Deleuze G. Qu’est-ce que l’acte de création? Trafic. 1998;27:133–42.Google Scholar
  16. Eco U. The narrative structure in Fleming. In: Del Buono O, Eco U, editors. The bond affair. London: Macdonald; 1965. p. 35–75.Google Scholar
  17. Faraj S, Jarvenpaa SL, Majchrzak A. Knowledge collaboration in online communities. Organ Sci. 2011;22(5):1224–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Garfinkel H. Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1967.Google Scholar
  19. Gehlen A. Man in the age of technology. New York: Columbia University Press; 1980.Google Scholar
  20. Georges F. L’identité numérique sous emprise culturelle. De l’expression de soi à sa standardisation. Cah Numér. 2011;7(1):31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Greimas AJ. On meaning: selected writings in semiotic theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; 1987.Google Scholar
  22. Heidegger M. The question concerning technology, and other essays. 1st ed. New York: Harper & Row; 1977.Google Scholar
  23. Hennion A. The production of success: an anti-musicology of the pop song. Popular Music. 1983:159–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hennion A. An intermediary between production and consumption: the producer of popular music. Sci Technol Hum Values. 1989;14(4):400–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hennion A. La mémoire et l’instant. Improvisation sur un thème de Denis Laborde. Tracés Rev Sci Hum. 2010;18:141–52.Google Scholar
  26. Hennion A, Gomart É. A sociology of attachment: music amateurs, drug users. In: Law J, Hassard J, editors. Actor network theory and after. Oxford: Blackwell; 1999.Google Scholar
  27. Holzer J. Construction of meaning in socio-technical networks: artefacts as mediators between routine and crisis conditions. Creat Innov Manag. 2012;21(1):49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Innis H. A. Empire and communications. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1950.Google Scholar
  29. Innis H. A. The bias of communication. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 2008.Google Scholar
  30. James W. Essays in radical empiricism. New York: Longman, Green, and Co.; 1912.Google Scholar
  31. Latour B. Science in action : how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1987.Google Scholar
  32. Latour B. We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1993.Google Scholar
  33. Latour B. On interobjectivity. Mind Cult Act. 1996;3:228–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Latour B. Circulating reference: sampling the soil in the Amazon forest. In: Latour B, editor. Pandora’s hope: essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1999a.Google Scholar
  35. Latour B. Pandora’s hope : essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1999b.Google Scholar
  36. Latour B. La fabrique du droit : une ethnographie du Conseil d’État. Paris: La Découverte; 2002.Google Scholar
  37. Latour B. Reassembling the social : an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  38. Latour B, Woolgar S. Laboratory life : the social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills: Sage; 1979.Google Scholar
  39. MacKenzie D. Material markets : how economic agents are constructed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.Google Scholar
  40. McLuhan M. Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1965.Google Scholar
  41. Miettinen R. The sources of novelty: a cultural and systemic view of distributed creativity. Creat Innov Manag. 2006;15(2):173–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Plato, Jowett B. The republic: Plato. Cleveland: The World Publishing Co.; 1946.Google Scholar
  43. Sawyer RK. Explaining creativity: the science of human innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012.Google Scholar
  44. Tarde G. Monadologie et sociologie. Chicoutimi: J.-M. Tremblay; 1893.Google Scholar
  45. Weisberg RW. Creativity: beyond the myth of genius. New York: W.H. Freeman; 1993.Google Scholar
  46. White L. Medieval technology and social change. Oxford: Clarendon; 1962.Google Scholar
  47. Whitehead AN. The concept of nature: Tarner lectures delivered in Trinity College, November, 1919. Cambridge: University Press; 1964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université de MontréalMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Center for the Sociology of InnovationMines ParisTech UniversityParisFrance

Section editors and affiliations

  • Igor N. Dubina
    • 1
  1. 1.Economic Information SystemsAltai State UniversityBarnaulRussia