So sánh phương pháp
Xem các phương pháp đã chọn cạnh nhau; những hàng khác biệt được làm nổi bật.
| Actor-Network Theory Analysis× | Controversy Mapping× | |
|---|---|---|
| Lĩnh vực | Science Technology Studies | Science Technology Studies |
| Họ | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Năm ra đời≠ | 1984 | 2010 |
| Người khởi xướng≠ | Bruno Latour, Michel Callon, John Law | Bruno Latour (Sciences Po médialab); codified by Tommaso Venturini |
| Loại≠ | Material-semiotic theory and analytic method | Qualitative descriptive method and pedagogy |
| Công trình gốc≠ | Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 9780199256051 | Venturini, T. (2010). Diving in magma: how to explore controversies with actor-network theory. Public Understanding of Science, 19(3), 258-273. DOI ↗ |
| Tên gọi khác | ANT analysis, Sociology of translation, Actant-network mapping | Cartography of controversies, Mapping scientific controversies, Controversy analysis |
| Liên quan | 4 | 4 |
| Tóm tắt≠ | Actor-Network Theory analysis treats society and technology as a single woven fabric, mapping how heterogeneous human and non-human actors—engineers, scallops, documents, machines, regulators—are linked into networks through a process of translation. Rather than explaining technical outcomes by appeal to pre-given social categories, ANT follows the actors themselves and describes how durable arrangements are assembled, stabilised, and sometimes undone. | Controversy mapping is a descriptive method for exploring and representing socio-technical disputes while they are still open and unsettled, before they harden into accepted facts or stable technologies. Developed as a teaching practice by Bruno Latour and codified by Tommaso Venturini at the Sciences Po médialab, it asks the analyst to dive into the heat of a debate, follow the actors and their arguments without prematurely taking sides, and render the resulting complexity legible through maps and visualisations. It treats controversy not as a pathology to be resolved but as the privileged moment in which the social and the technical are visibly being assembled. |
| ScholarGateBộ dữ liệu ↗ |
|
|