Using actor–network theory to revisit the digitalized tool in social design

Figures & data

Table 1. Conception of the elements in the actor–network theory (ANT).

Factors	Definition and explanation
Actor	‘An ‘actor’ in ANT is a semiotic definition, an actant, that is something that acts or to which activity is granted by others’ (Latour 1996, 373). From an ANT perspective, any entity that modifies a situation can be considered an actor or actant (human and non-human actors in a network) in relation to that situation (Latour 2007; as quoted in Ballantyne [2015]). An actant can literally be anything provided it is deemed to be the source of an action (Latour 1996).
Mediator	Mediators can be defined as things, such as tools and artefacts, that allow us to do things, perform actions, and undertake activities. It also includes language, instruments, signs, and machines (Conole 2009) A mediator is someone or something situated in a middle position and serves to facilitate a result or a transfer of information. Mediation is also associated with legal and social conflicts, in which mediators resolve differences by working with conflicting parties (Kefi and Pallud 2011).
Translation	For ANT, translation is understood as all the negotiations, intrigues, calculations, acts of persuasion, and violence through which an actant is changed. It occurs when one actant (a single human, a group of humans, an object or a group thereof) helps another to appreciate how their interests will be met by joining the network (Rydin and Tate 2016). In ANT, effective actors are viewed as mediators, whose input does not help predict their output and who ‘transform, translate, distort, and modify the meaning or the elements they are supposed to carry’ (Latour 2007).
Actor network	Network is a concept, not a thing out there. It is a tool to help describe something, not what is being described (Latour 2007). An actor network accounts for the very essence of societies and natures (Latour 1996). This refers to ‘heterogeneous network of aligned interests, including people, organizations and standards’ (Walsham 1997, 468).

Figure 1. QR code colours of the health code.

Figure 2. Health code layers.

Figure 3. Health code and space–time companion structure.

Figure 4. Antagonistic and complementary relationships among variables.

Figure 5. Conflict and tension between hierarchical and co-acting networks.

Latour, Bruno. 1996. “On Actor-Network Theory: A Few Clarifications.” Soziale Welt 4: 369–381.

 Google Scholar

Latour, Bruno. 2007. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.

 Google Scholar

Ballantyne, Neil. 2015. “Human Service Technology and the Theory of the Actor Network.” Journal of Technology in Human Services 33 (1): 104–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228835.2014.998567

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Conole, Gràinne. 2009. “The Role of Mediating Artefacts in Learning Design.” In Handbook of Research on Learning Design and Learning Objects: Issues, Applications and Technologies, edited by Lorie Lockyer, Sue Bennett, Shirley Agostinho, and Barry Harper, 188–208. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.

 Google Scholar

Kefi, Hajer, and Jessie Pallud. 2011. “The Role of Technologies in Cultural Mediation in Museums: An Actor-Network Theory View Applied in France.” Museum Management and Curatorship 26 (3): 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2011.585803

 Google Scholar

Rydin, Yvonne, and Laura Tate. 2016. Actor Networks of Planning: Exploring the Influence of Actor Network Theory. Abingdon: Routledge.

 Google Scholar

Walsham, G. 1997. “Actor-Network Theory and is Research: Current Status and Future Prospects.” In Information Systems and Qualitative Research, edited by Allen S. Lee, Jonathan Liebenau, and Janice I. DeGross, 466–480. London: Chapman and Hall.

 Google Scholar