ANT and Engineering Education, learning spaces with actors

Main Article Content

Jose Figueiredo


Engineering education is a situated process, enacted by empowerment, motivation and enrolment of actors, using different materials, and framed in exploratory attempts. Inscribing technologic design in the use of artefacts is a basic engineering concern and pushes us to sociotechnical ambiences of value earning and sustainability. We think Actor-Network Theory provides a framework that contributes to our understanding of complexity inscribed in the relations and mutual influences that emerge among actors in learning spaces. Using narrative, and exploring ANT concepts, we circulate in learning spaces, observing and deciding about ways we can explore to enhance knowledge creation and learning. Our results are exploratory but they intend to contribute to a different look into educational fields. Our basic goal is to convince researchers to join us in our reflections and experiments. We believe we are tackling with an innovative perspective, consistent with an extension to this area of knowledge – engineering education.

Article Details

How to Cite
Figueiredo, J. (2020). ANT and Engineering Education, learning spaces with actors. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(10), 49–59.


[1]. Latour, Bruno, 1987, Science in Action, Harvard University Press, 1987.
[2]. Law, John, 2009, Actor network theory and material semiotics, in B.S. Turner (ed.) The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
[3]. Callon, M., 1987, Society in the making: The study of technology as a tool for sociological analysis, in T. Huges, & T. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (pp. 83-103). London: MIT Press.
[4]. Latour, Bruno, 2005, Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory, Oxford University Press.
[5]. Laet, Marianne and Annemarie Mol, 2000, The Zimbabwe Bush Pump: Mechanics of a Fluid Technology, Social Studies of Science, Vol. 30, No. 2, (Apr., 2000), pp. 225-263.
[6]. Callon, Michel, 1986, Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay, in J. Law, Power, action and belief: a new sociology of knowledge? London, Routledge, 1986, pp.196-223.
[7]. Latour, Bruno, 1996, On actor-network theory: A few clarifications plus more than a few complications, Soziale Welt, vol. 47, pp. 369-381.
[8]. Strathern, M., 2000, What is intellectual property after, In Law, J. & Hassard, J. (Eds.), Actor network theory and after (pp. 156-180). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
[9]. Akrich, M., M. Callon, B. Latour, 2002, The key to success in innovation, International Journal of Innovation Management, 6, 2 (June), pp. 187-225
[10]. Law, John, 1987, Technology Transfer and Social Engineering, Social Studies of Science, Volume: 17 issue: 3, page(s): 564-569.
[11]. Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A., 1993, Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change, Review of Educational Research, 63, 167–199.
[12]. Bigum, Chris, 2000, Actor-network theory and online university teaching: translation versus diffusion, (eds., Knight, B. A. and Rowan, L.) Researching Futures Oriented Pedagogies, PostPressed, Flaxton, Qld, pp. 7-22.
[13]. Nespor, J., 2002, Networks and contexts of reform, Journal of Educational Change, vol. 3, nº 3-4, pp 365-82
[14]. Roth, Wolff-Michael, 1996, Knowledge Diffusion in a Grade 4-5 Classroom During a Unit on Civil Engineering: An Analysis of a Classroom Community in Terms of Its Changing Resources and Practices, Cognition and Instruction, 14, 2, pp. 179-220.
[15]. Cross, L. Rob, and Sam Israelit, 2000, Strategic Learning in a knowledge Economy Individual, Collective and Organizational Learning Process, Butterworth – Heinemann
[16]. Law, John, 1999, After ANT: Complexity, Naming and Topology, in J. Law and J. Hassard (eds.) Actor Network Theory and After, 1-14, Oxford: Blackwell
[17]. Latour, Bruno 1988, The pasteurization of France, Translated by Alan Sheridan and John Law. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press.
[18]. McCarthy, Daniel R. 2015, Power, Information Technology, and International Relations Theory, Basingstoke: Palgrave
[19]. Law, John, 2008., Actor-network theory and material semiotics, in: Turner, Bryan S. ed. The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, 3rd Edition. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 141–158.
[20]. Law, John, and M. Callon, 1992, The life and dead of an aircraft: a network analysis of technical change, in W.E. Bijker and J. Law (eds.) Shaping Technology/building society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, pp. 21-52.
[21]. Thorndike, E. L., 1914, Educational psychology: Vol. 3. Mental work and fatigue and individual differences and their causes, New York: Teachers College Press.
[22]. Schunk, Dale H., 2012, Learning Theories An Educational Perspective, Sixth Edition, The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Pearson
[23]. Waltz, Scott B., 2006, Nonhumans Unbound: Actor-Network Theory and the Reconsideration of "Things" in Educational Foundations, v20 n3-4 p51-68 Sum-Fall 2006.
[24]. Latour, Bruno, 1994, On Technical Mediation – Philosophy, Sociology, Genealogy, Common Knowledge, Fall 1994.
[25]. Latour, Bruno, 1991, Technology is society made durable, in J. Law (ed.) A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology, and Domination, London and New York Routledge, pp 103-31.
[26]. Singleton, V., 1998, Stabilizing Instabilities: the role of the laboratory in the United Kingdom cervical screening programme, in Berg and A. Mol (eds.) Differences in Medicine: unravelling Practices, Techniques and Bodies, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, pp 86-104.
[27]. Frankham, J., 2006, Network utopias and alternative entanglements for educational research practice, Journal of Education Policy, vol. 21, 6:661-77.
[28]. Latour, Bruno, 1999, On Recalling ANT, in John Law and J. Hassard (eds.) Actor Network and After, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, The Sociological review, pp. 15 -25.
[29]. Latour, Bruno, 2005a, From realpolitik to dingpolitik: how to make things public, in B. Latour and P. Weibel (eds.) Making things Public, Cambridge, MIT Press, pp. 14-41
[30]. Ball, S.J., 2000, What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes, in S.J. Ball (ed.) The Sociology of Education: major Themes, London, Routledge, pp. 1830-40.
[31]. Emad G, Roth WM, 2009, Policy as boundary objects: a new way to look at educational policy design, Vocations and Learning, vol 2, nº1, pp. 19-36.
[32]. Wenger, E., 1998, Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.
[33]. Star Susan Leigh and James Griesemer, 1989, Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, Social Studies of Science, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Aug., 1989), pp. 387-420 (34 pages)
[34]. Covey, Stephen, 1989, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, Free Press
[35]. Hulley SB, Newman TB, Cummings SR., 1988, The anatomy and physiology of research. In: Hulley SB, Cummings SR (editors). Designing clinical research. Baltimore: William & Wilkins; 1988:1–11.