Teoria ator-rede e estudos críticos em administração: possibilidades de um diálogo

Abstract

ResumoO objetivo deste artigo é questionar se a teoria ator-rede (TAR) seria, de fato, incapaz de contribuir para análises criticas nos estudos organizacionais. Discutimos, então, as princpais características dos estudos críticos em administração, bem como seu desenvolvimento no contexto brasileiro. Apresentamos ainda alguns dos conceitos iniciais da TAR, que foram alvo de críticas não apenas por naturalizarem as organizações e transmitirem a ideia de que o processo de ordenação é estático, podendo ser entendido de maneira mecânica, mas também por desconsiderarem a dimensão política em suas análises. Como forma de superar tais limitações, que dificultariam um posicionamento crítico da TAR, analisamos os novos desenvolvimentos dessa abordagem, conhecidos como TAR e Depois, que redefiniram algumas de suas principais noções, possibilitando adotar essa perspectiva como "instrumento" analítico crítico das organizações. Concluímos que muitas das críticas direcionadas à TAR, no que concerne ao seu caráter acrítico e não-reflexivo, já não se sustentam mais, em função dos novos desdobramentos emergidos da TAR e Depois.Palavras-chave: estudos críticos em administração; teoria ator-rede; pós-estruturalismo. AbstractThe aim of this paper is to questioning whether the Actor-Network Theory would be, in fact, unable to contribute to the critical analyses in organizational studies. We discussed, then, the main characteristics of Critical Management Studies and its development in the Brazilian context. We also present some of the initial concepts of the ANT, which was subject to criticism by naturalizing organizations, transmitting the idea that the ordering process is static and can be understood in a mechanical way, and neglecting the political stance in its analyses. As a way to overcome such limitations, that would make difficult to position ANT as a critical approach, we discuss the new developments of this approach, known as ANT and After, which redefined some of its main concepts, enabling the use of it as a critical analytical "tool" to organizations. We conclude that many of the criticism intended for ANT, regarded to its uncritical and non-reflective character, are no longer appropriate, because of the new developments emerged from the ANT and After.

Sociomateriality: Theories, methodology, and practice

“…This theory originated in the work of Michel Serres, Algirdas Greimas, Isabel Stengers, Gabriel Tarde, and Harold Garfinkel. The main influences of ANT are semiotics/structuralism, phenomenology, and ethnomethodology (Alcadipani & Tureta, 2009). Bruno Latour, Michel Callon, and John Law are the main proponents of this approach.…”

“…To adopt the assumptions of ANT is to understand that its analytical perspective does not derive from assumptions defined a priori; ANT suggests that there are no rigid definitions applicable to all situations (Alcadipani & Tureta, 2009). ANT interprets society and the social as emerging from the action and association of human and non-human entities and from the effects of their networks without considering any pre-existing element (Fenwick & Edwards, 2010).…”

A Longitudinal Analysis of Territorial Social Innovations in a Touristic Route

“…In addition, the organizations are continuous and incomplete entities, partial and precarious. Analysing them through ANT is an attempt to understand the way by which a scattered and complex system, composed by humans and non-humans, becomes a network (Alcadipani & Tureta, 2009b).…”

LAN House implementation and sustainability in Brazil: an actor-network theory perspective

“…Alcadipani and Tureta (2009) highlight the fact that ANT comprises a vast vocabulary of its own, whereby the comprehension and understanding of same is required for its correct use. For this reason, Table 2 consolidates the main terms of ANT.…”