Not much has happened on this blog - since the last posting... Its not a daily business (like
). Not posting anything does not mean that nothing has happened. Amongst others I have got a grant for a PhD. As of 1 January 2007 I am thus a PhD fellow at DPU (
).
Now, last week I followed a Phd course focusing on Symbolic Interactionism, Neo Institutinal Theory and Actor-Network Theory (ANT). I submitted the following presentation - focusing on how I could make use of ANT as a research strategy:
Following the introduction of an online project portal, negotiations of revised industry standards, a learning network, and a system for documenting best practices in the construction sector, this brief presentation outlines how my PhD project – that is concerned with contributing new insights to the already diverse field of organizational learning theories – may benefit from adapting ANT as a research strategy.
About the PhD project
In short, my PhD-project is about inter‑organizational learning in the construction sector. More specifically, it is concerned with capturing and exploring the complexity, the rationales for change as well as the effects that the combined introduction of information and communication technologies (an online project portal), revised industry standards, and a system for documenting best practices may have on learning processes, work procedures and organizational routines as they exist, get re‑produced or transformed within and among distributed, ad-hoc coalitions of strategic partners in the Danish construction sector. Yet again, in other, more particular words, it is a longitudinal study of transdisciplinary, inter-organisational, on-site, ICT-mediated praxis learning in, say, ‘actor-networks’…
Then what is an actor-network and what does the Science and Technolgoy Studies, STS, or more specifically, Actor-Network Theory, ANT, actually hold in terms of promises for the researcher whose aim it is to meet the above mentioned concerns; how can ANT be applied to the given context in order to actually add anything novel and essential to the field of inter‑organizational learning?
Contributing to 30 years of organizational learning theories
The overall goal of the PhD‑project is, through empirical findings, to highlight strengths, weaknesses and not least shortcomings, in the existing fund of organizational learning theories – since Argyris and Schön’s seminal theory of action perspective on organizational learning (Argyris and Schön 1978). How to position one self in that field; what could ANT do for me? According to an overview published in Management Learning (Easterby-Smith, Antonacopoulou et al. 2004), at least seven major contributions have been influential since 1978 – when the concept of single- and double‑loop learning as the basis for OL was introduced for the first time – at least in a coherent manner.
Indeed, in addition to cognitive theories, and before that, behavioral theories, recent studies have drawn upon psycho-analytic theory, cultural theory, or social anthropology. Sets of counter-intuitive ideas (e.g. unlearning) have been introduced or, recently, learning across boundaries and views of knowledge transfer as a strategic imperative for gaining a competitive advantage. In addition, case studies and surveys based on e.g. ethnography and mixed methods have been thrown into the field... Overall, two views of OL, namely individuals’ skills and knowledge acquisition, and systems of learning in communities of practice, have dominated the field. Studies by e.g. Elkjaer (2003);(2004) integrate those dominant views to develop only a third approach that brings, among others, intuition and emotion to the fore. Clearly, one branch that is of particular interest for this study, relates itself to inter‑organizational learning, i.a. learning through strategic alliances, alliances as learning experiments, or learning as competition for competences (Holmqvist 2000). In sum, the field of OL not only has relatively deep roots (behavioral studies date back to the 1950s) it is also a fairly diverse field that embraces new theories as well as methodologies.
The important question to be asked here, now, is whether or not it is a reasonable quest to try to actually adopt ANT as a methodology for doing field studies of the adoption of information and communication technologies between alliances of strategic (learning) partners. Before answering that question a brief outline of the reason for this study and the empirical field in question – the Danish construction sector anno 2007 – is in place.
The Digital TakeoverSeveral studies
[1] have by now indicated that the Danish construction sector’s productivity lacks behind that of the industrial sector at large; that losses and failures are prevailing, or that actual costs are in excess of 25-35 percent of budgets
[2]. Despite an estimated 14 billion EUR turnover in the sector, revenues are alarmingly low – the 6-8 leading Danish consulting engineering companies and entrepreneurs are apparently running non-profit enterprises
[3]. Such conclusions have been an incentive for the Danish state to take a lead in streamlining and professionalizing the sector to make it more competitive.
Thus, 1 January 2007 was trumpet blasted as D-day. D for digital
[4].... As of that day any entrepreneur, constructor or engineering consultant responding to a public tender to construct a new, publicly financed building or any other edifice of an estimated total costs in excess of approximately 5 million EUR must apply through an online project portal
[5]. Thus, the portal will hold all details regarding future public construction works – from the initial tender through to the delivery of the final edifice to the building owner, in these cases the Danish state.
The project is seen as a united public-private initiative to stimulate digital integration in the entire building and construction sector. The Danish government and its agency
[6], has combined a set of different strategies to move forward the sector. As a major building owner it has chosen to take the lead and demand that suppliers fulfill certain criteria, i.a. explicating and sharing all documentation online, including e.g. 3D drawings (demand driven innovation). In addition, it has invested time and money in educational work and information campaigns and aimed at acting itself as a role model. Finally, the Government has implemented additional rules and regulations in the public building statutory
[7].
A vast number of actors
[8] from all parts of the construction sectors covering every type of participating parties in the building processes have already been mobilized – prior to D-day. Although the sector at large has already embraced information and communication technologies, the first concrete project tender remains to be published and processed via the actual, online portal.
Applying ANTWe learned from e.g. Laboratory Life that scientific facts are constructions… Bruno Latour did his research in the laboratory applying the approach of ethno‑methodology – he did his observations, took his notes, made interviews, etc. Later he developed very original analyses of science and technology. He did so by looking at series of events. He is embedded in the laboratory and here he tracks down a network of elements, of inscriptions, of semiotics, of entities. He eliminated the distinction between human and non‑human (cf. the doctrine of symmetry (Lowe 2001) and quasi-objects/hybrids), and introduced the actant – something that acts or receives activity from others, humans and non-humans alike. Indeed, an actant can be anything as long as it is acknowledged as a source for action (Latour 2006 (1997): 214) and thus is set in relation with other entities in … the network!
As such, ANT is special in the way it treats human and non-humans or society and nature as symmetrical entities and in the way that chains of actions are used to explain e.g. changes in strategic alliances and the staging of events. Bruno Latour argues against what is normally a given, or a taken‑for‑granted; he and his followers aim at expose modern myths by de‑constructing them as products of laborious and wide-stretching constructions (Jensen). Then, what Latour has to offer to the analysis of ICT‑mediated inter‑organizational learning in the construction sector is, I guess, that no sociological variable must be defined a priori; none of any identified phenomena need being ruled out of the analysis, (just) because it is either technical, physical, material, or e.g. structural (idem).
ANT forces the researcher to observe what works in a situation, to observe representations, relations, transformations, displacements, circulations, attributions (Latour 2006 (1997): 215). The point of departure is theoretical minimalism... You need only three concepts, namely actant, network and relation (Döpping 1998). Thus, the researcher is forced to look closely at the empirical field – and begin there.
Potential of ANT for developing new insights to the field of OLThe overall goal with digitalizing the construction sector is to streamline and professionalize that sector to make it more competitive. Ultimately one should get better and/or cheaper buildings, on time, with fewer long- and short‑term structural defects causing additional costs for the building owner – in this case, the state. Ideally more people could learn from each other, faster, because several types of information become available instantly to any participating actor actually looking for it.
As such it is anticipated
[9] that the introduction of the online portal (and its complex network of human and non-human entities) will advance, among others, a set of agreed industry standards to classify e.g. window frames, windows, window hinges, and yet other items related to particular parts of the structure, the building, i.e. Equally, it is expected that more people can be duly informed about changes etc. introduced in course of the construction process. This is guaranteed in terms of moreover traditional knowledge management levers - by making transparent and instantly accessible all kinds of documentation, including e.g. 3-dimensional drawings and virtual simulations of light, emergency exits, etc. ANT is a way to challenge such a priori assumptions and draw‑up how and where they fail. Standards, for one thing, tend to truncate the richness of information because the only standard that can be commonly agreed, not least among competing and quite different partners tend to be the lowest denominator (Damsgaard and Truex 2000)). The various actors involved in the construction process may show much resistance against sharing their knowledge; they are likely to reserve their particular knowledge domains – as they have done for centuries (Jensen 2007).
The application of Science and Technology Studies, STS, or more specifically ANT, provides a position from which one could observe how the technology may or may not fulfill the original intentions. It is quite likely a reasonable way to look at how working procedures and organizational routines get challenged and, perhaps even how they are changed. It is reasonable to assume also, that one could observe e.g. how existing organizational follies from the physical work world get reproduced in digital or virtual environment (cf. well known STS issues known as path-dependency and closure (Wenneberg 2000)).
Given that observations are meticulously noted with the identification of learning processes and changes in work procedures etc kept in sight, I believe that ANT does actually hold the key to disclose certain, valuable insights for the researcher of OL. At least to me it has become clear – from working on this presentation – that ANT has something to offer in terms of investigating the specific field and answering the difficulties outlined in the beginning of this presentation. STS, or rather ANT, is a formidable position from which it is possible to observe how technology is more than just an innocent (given, natural) solution to problems that in some case are deeply rooted. By applying ANT it is possible to challenge taken‑for‑granted assumptions. It may, as a methodology, allow me to list in a coherent manner what the initial visions were and what actually happened (Science and Technology Studies are particularly apt at this) – or went wrong, and use it as a means for drawing‑up an important case of ICT-mediated inter‑organizational learning – carrying‑on a long tradition and yet contributing with a new position.
ReferencesArgyris, C. and D. A. Schön (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. London, Addison Wesley.
Damsgaard, J. and D. Truex (2000). "Binary trading relations and the limits of EDI standards: the Procrustean bed of standards." European Journal of Information Systems 9: 173-188.
Döpping, J. (1998). Læring, Viden og Løsninger: Socialpsykologiske undersøgelser af konstruktionsprocesser. Copenhagen, Copenhagen University. PhD dissertation.
Easterby-Smith, M., E. Antonacopoulou, et al. (2004). "Constructing Contributions to Organizational Learning. Argyris and the Next Generation." Management learning 35(4): 371-380.
Elkjaer, B. (2003). "Organizational learning with a pragmatic slant." International Journal of Lifelong Educationq 22(5): 481-494.
Elkjaer, B. B. (2004). "Organizational Learning: The 'Third Way'." Management learning 35(4): 419-434.
Holmqvist, M. (2000). The Dynamics of Experiential Learning. Edsbruk, School of Business, Stockholm University.
Jensen, H. S. (2007). Kompetencebegrebet - og tavs viden. AGORA 2007. Copenhagen, Learning Lab Denmark.
Jensen, T. E. Bruno Latour og konstruktionisme - en introduktion, Københavns Universitet.
Latour, B. (2006 (1997)). Vi har aldrig været moderne, Hans Reitzels Forlag.
Lowe, A. (2001). "After ANT - An illustrative discussion of the implications for qualitative accounting case re-search." Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 14(3): 327-351.
Wenneberg, S. B. (2000). Socialkonstruktivisme. København, Samfundslitteratur.
Opslag
