Controversies as method for ANTi-history: An inquiry into public administration practices

Abstract

Drawing on Actor-Network Theory and the cartography of controversies, we present a method for ANTi-History research to investigate the implementation of a contract between a labour services company and a public university hospital in Brazil. The research question focuses on how the past is enacted in the present. The method is a general guideline based on five focal points used to organize the fieldwork: identifying controversies; mapping the actor-network; drawing out the translation process; politics of actor-networks and multiple reality/power relations. The proposed method makes two contributions to ANTi-History literature. First, although these focal points have been discussed by ANTi-History scholars, they are scattered throughout the literature. We unite them to offer a guide to doing historically embedded research. Second, we show how controversy analysis can be helpful for mapping the politics of actor-networks and describing multiple realities in the construction of history.

Design-Driven Conflicts: Exploring the Contribution of Design for Constructing Social Controversies from a Theoretical Standpoint

“…Through the translation process, social realities, including the interest of actors, can be modified differently. This means the divergence of interests is more about the process of translation, rather than transformation [54]. Moreover, Ackoff [55] and Gharajed- Regarding the origin of conflicts, in an early study, Coser [50] (p. 201) divided the sources and incidences of conflict into four categories, including the distribution of power, wealth, resources, and achieved identity.…”

“…Through the translation process, social realities, including the interest of actors, can be modified differently. This means the divergence of interests is more about the process of translation, rather than transformation [54]. Moreover, Ackoff [55] and Gharajedaghi [11], based on a review of early social thinkers, such as Marx, Weber, and Bagdanov, defined the root cause of controversies from a systemic point of view based on a 'network' of five elements, including wealth, beauty, power, value, and knowledge.…”

“…institution does not occur within a specific time and context. The problem is relatively political [54]. It is related to the distribution of knowledge (as a process) and the consequences of that transmission in a new context.…”

“…In other words, although oppression created the possibility for the emerging new order, it never scaled up as expected. Thus, there is no doubt that controversy, as a dynamic process [54], contains a series of actions and decisions that happened in the past (in relation to what was important for people), continue in the present (in regard to power relations), and alter the future. Learning from a futuristic discipline (e.g., design sciences), the future can be socially constructed by the creative use of the assets of today [79] in a way to create (new) synergies between opposing realities.…”

Performance Evaluation Method of Public Administration Department Based on Improved DEA Algorithm

“…Moradi and Barakat believed that the definition of performance evaluation of the public department was very broad, and the mainstream view held that performance evaluation of public administration department referred to the activity of measuring and evaluating government performance within a certain period of time in order to improve the performance of government behavior and enhance control [7]. Tureta et al believed that government performance evaluation could be regarded as the evaluation and grading of the performance reflected by the input, output, midterm results and final results in the process of government public department management based on the analysis and judgment of efficiency, capacity, service quality, public responsibility, and public satisfaction [8]. Dwivedi et al believed that according to the implementation method, role, and purpose of performance evaluation, in the research, it was believed that performance evaluation of public department was to compare the actual work results of public department with performance objectives [9].…”