Here are few variations between Actor Network Theory and Interpersonal construction of technology that I came across from various analysts' viewpoint.
To focus on, I would like to write down the basic difference between Acting professional network theory and the idea of social structure of technology. Professional network theory (ANT) considers both technical determinism and interpersonal determinism, i. e. it does not stick by the theory that technology styles the society or the culture shapes the technology (latour, Reassembling the interpersonal: an launch to actor-network-theory, 2005). Friendly Structure of technology (SCOT) theory follows the ideas that technology is emerged from the cultural interaction of cultural group, which may be called interpersonal determinism. (Klein, H. K. & Kleinman, D. L. , 2002)
Both of the theories involve members in process of shaping the network or in shaping the outcome, known as 'Stars'. Actors involved with ANT are humans and non-humans that are treated just as separation between the two are difficult, as it can't be said who played out the major role. (latour, 1997). The celebrities involved in SCOT are the 'Relevant Sociable group' which include people showing the same involvement in shaping the scientific artifact (Bijker, Hughes, & Pinch, 1989). Actors in ANT need to be performing constantly to keep the network flowing without any lag or hick up. SCOT will not follow a strict theory on the performance of the celebrities or the communities. If a certain relevant cultural group's involvement or effect is less than the other group, if so it only brings in a few changes in the outcome of the scientific artifact. (Klein, H. K. & Kleinman, D. L. , 2002) Talking about the purpose of these theories, ANT is more about how exactly the networks are formed alternatively than why they can be formed. It does not predict the results of the socio-technical artifact at any point. These entities are known as mediators where the insight by the actors cannot predict the outcome; somewhat it multiplies or deletes the insight/object transferring through network known as 'tokens or quasi things'. (Wikipedia) Whereas SCOT illustrates how the social surrounding which include RSG and other celebrities give rise to a particular artifact. From the beginning the outcome is expected or made a decision. It acts similar to an intermediate unlike ANT. It generally does not really matter if there are changes that come through in the communal surrounding while building the artifact, the recently assumed idea of the results would still continue to be the same. (Klein, H. K. & Kleinman, D. L. , 2002)
If we review ANT carefully, the celebrities involved with it are not simply objects but a link of other elements which self takes its network. To appear to be an individual point actor, these elements are simplified or 'African american boxed'. Which means the network stars are available to new ideas and their contents can be reconsidered (Gidding, 1999). The idea of reconsidering the content does not exist in SCOT. It limits the impact of the RSG after the interpretive flexibility starts off to gradually diminish. This causes it to attain the rhetorical closure, thus the alternative idea of a fresh design is eradicated. (Klein, H. K. & Kleinman, D. L. , 2002)
'Following the professional', this method in ANT claim that the actors established their construction and the limits of the network independently. Stars in ANT are able to make their presence 'individually believed' by the other actors (Tatnall & Burgess, 2002). As discussed earlier, celebrities can be thought of as a 'black box', which has many actors hiding one behind other. So essentially all the actors can be found at one place or it could be said that the stars form a single point actor and this effect is known as Punctualisation (latour, Reassembling the social: an benefits to actor-network-theory, 2005). Once the same method is compared to SCOT, stars are followed who are relevant to the technology which may lead to another actor who is also highly relevant to that technology. The process is continuing till no new actor's pop-up. This causes the interpretation to come to a closure.
Both of the theories have a confident and a negative part of their own. The biggest downside of SCOT is that it ignores the result of the technology after they have come into life by sociable determinism. The scientific artifact may have been developed for a specific purpose. But it is hard to expect the end-users to utilize it the way it is suppose to be utilized. If so, this means that the result of the technology after is has come into presence from a cultural determinism method, is slowly and gradually shaping the modern culture in its way. That brings us back to scientific determinism. (Klein, H. K. & Kleinman, D. L. , 2002)
As we realize RSG solves the specialized problems, seeking alternatives, etc. We do not know who determines the which group are relevant social group and with the same the cultural interest. It does not include the teams which have no voice as well as the groups that'll be influenced by the results of technical change and also the groups which have been stamped down and excluded (Prell, Christina, 2009).
It also fails to explain the circumstances where one of the relevant social groups very seriously disagrees to either to the look or technological system or artifact, etc. There is no explanation how the theory would cope with the disagreements of the groupings. Many critiques has described on the same fault of theory that it portrays all the cultural groups on the same level or writing equal authority or power. There's a slight mistake with the interpretive versatility once it extends to the closure. It does not look back for further interpretations in the future. (Hard, 1993)
Actor-network theory snacks humans and non-humans equivalent. It has been argued by many critics that how do a non-human be designated to be a company. For instance, a technology can only just be discovered because we differentiate it from human being actors. Technology do not speak for themselves nor do they exist outside of processes of human assumption. Analytically speaking there is absolutely no such non-human actor to be described by ANT. ANT assumes that all actors, such as both humans and non-humans, are equivalent within the network, and have the same vitality. This leaves no space for electricity instability is still left. Thus the power problems within the network. ANT circumstance studies contributes to a whole lot of useless information that seem to be pointless. (Whittle & Spicer, 2005)
Another major drawback of ANT it gets very difficult to 'follow the stars' as the researcher would have to enter the depth of the topic for investigating a specific circumstance without knowing where they'll lead. As the celebrities are 'black-boxed', the researcher is following only one acting professional and would not know if it could open up further possible exploration. Among other weakness about ANT is that the celebrities, ANT requires both celebrities to be doing constantly to keep the network flowing. Even if one fails, the whole system fails. (learning-theories, 2008)
Talking about the effectiveness of SCOT, one of the plus point of SCOT is how it overcomes one problem by finding a better way to look at the technology. For instance. Bicycle. There was a lot of question on the safeness and the way it was built or searched. But, the eventually they used it as a result of fact that these were fast when it emerged to accelerate. They overlooked the situation by relating it to another better plus point to the technology. To take into account it, end of the day we (humans) are the once who are going to use the technology. So doesn't it make more sense that people form the technology the way we want it? Based on our software we can shape the technology, SCOT is something that does indeed a similar. Unlike ANT even if one if the celebrities fail to perform, the results of the system or the technical artifact will not fail. In that case that particular acting professional or the group will have less impact in the process of earning the artifact. (Bijker, Hughes, & Pinch, 1989)
Actor-network theories main power would be how it overcomes both social and technical determinism. This is practical in ways because in a specific technology, it is hard to state who enjoyed the major role, humans or non-humans. For example, let us take the exemplory case of how the laptop came into existence. If we've a consider it, the invention results from individuals and technology. The technical facet of the laptop is achieved by the specialized team which in-turn is influenced by the sociable record. Therefore, what appears to be social is partially technical and what appears to be technical is partially cultural. (latour, Reassembling the public: an release to actor-network-theory, 2005)
'Following the stars' may have been criticized regarding ANT but they have its positive area too. When compared to SCOT, it generally does not have to address every single professional of the same revelant group. In ANT all the celebrities act as an individual point actor which may be within the 'African american container'. (Gidding, 1999)
