‘agora’ metaphor
As many of you know, I study the spread and localization of packaged software such as Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) in institutions of higher education. In this line of literature, a new concept has emerged to discuss linkages between organizations called the “agora.” ERP, as a product, is specific enough for higher education as a sector, but generic enough that the systems need to be localized to some extent during implementation (Cornford & Pollock 2003:111; Pollock et al. 2007).
Software modules in ERP for higher education mainly include human resources, student information services, and financial operations, which handle tasks essential for running a university (like payroll and promotions) but have little to do with a university‘s public image (like professors and promotional websites). ERP’s primary advantages are related. First, data storage is centralized. Rather than having numerous databases, an ERP centralizes data storage into a single grid (Davenport 1998). ERPs provide “real-time” data to university officials. As a result, their decisions can be made with the best possible information, which improves upon previous systems where data were commonly outdated (Pollock 1999). Third, data are authoritative. With ERPs, data storage is centralized so that data can be accessed by any functional area with permission to access them. This eliminates the problem of “competing” data (Swartz & Orgill 2001:21). Lastly, students, faculty, and staff are turned into “self-service” users who monitor their own relationship to the university (in the form of scheduling, pay, payments, insurance, grades, etc.) rather than having those tasks administered by support staff (Pollock 2003).
Now, I first read about the ‘agora’ concept in Pollock and Williams’ (2008) newish book Software and Organisations on the “biography” of contemporary ERP. Their analysis, which spanned decades, multiple sectors of the economy, numerous suppliers and adopters of packaged software, which itself took on many forms, their respective support and implementation experiences, and countless additional actors — and all this happened in what they are calling an “agora.” Now even their broad analysis was conducted in segments and episodes, inter-related as they may be, from particular vantage points; each analysis adding another slice of the “agora,” a term borrowed from Kaniakakis (2006; 2008), which is:
an extensive, seamless web of social (or rather, socio-technical) relations over time; there are no walls or gullies that allow what is ‘outside’ to be reliably fenced out/factored out of the analytic picture … [which draws] attention not only to the heterogeneity of players but also the intricate and heterogeneous pattern of linkages that exist between these players (Pollock & Williams 2008:292).
Such dynamics cannot be captured by standard-fair STS concepts like “network builder” (Hughes 1993) or “heterogeneous engineering” (Latour 1987; Law 1987 [ch 6]) because agoras are of no one’s making and instead materialize from multiple linkages constituted by coordinated and uncoordinated events and actions over time. They are not really “just” networks or communities. They are not “just” markets or fields either. Instead, this model of organization contains and is constituted by organizations whose forms are not necessarily suboptimal and their behaviors are not necessarily strategic. Instead, the assumption is that they are all relationally defined and operate relationally. As such, their heterogeneous contents — machines, software, office buildings, offices, analysts, their publications, their publications in use, vendors, their support desks, their users, etc. — are held together by shifting “linkages,” which is not to say networks or communities because what binds them is not merely interest or commonality. The task then, is to search for “cues” Pollock and Williams (2008) say, cues for where to study these linkages (and when, given that they also theorize the significance of temporal aspects of design and organization in a non-trivial way). The emphasis on inter-organizational consequences and processes is appealing to me, given my commitments to new institutional theory, which appears to have finally arrived to STS.
This is a third-wave of theory for STS, and it is related intensely to the role of organizations and places their operations central to the field of STS. On the one hand, it is a beautiful view — multiple vantage points collected in differing locations at multiple times. However, is it a view of the kitchen sink? I am cautious to criticize this approach as I to believe it to be a significantly novel approach to STS that outside scholars could also take-up. Still, the concept was designed to overcome such naive notions as “actor-network,” in part, because the term has been used in so many competing (and often clumsy) ways, but also to get away from the idea that “anything” can be included so long as we follow the actors.
The “agora” is a somewhat novel way to rethink the linkages that bind groups, people, places, and things over times and in multiple sites through variously coordinated and uncoordinated ways … and it may one day find its way to org theory, if it has not (to some extent) already arrived.
NOTE: this is the image I used to study the formation of the Athenian Agora while studying abroad as a young college student — if you’re out there, thanks Anne!
very stimulating post. many thanks.
as one interested in four major forms of organization (tribes, hierarchic instits, markets, networks), i usually see the agora viewed as a kind of market in athenian times. but i’ve suspected it had tribal/clan dynamics as well, if not network ones too (depending on how network is defined).
your post illuminates nuances, raises interesting points
david ronfeldt
May 29, 2010 at 9:20 pm
I think you are into some serious territory. This reads like an unholy marriage of STS with Hayek’s spontaneous order theory. Technology is not a thing, it’s like a spontaneously evolving network/ecosystem of actions and things.
fabiorojas
May 30, 2010 at 2:58 am
Hmm… with all due respect, seems to me that I should be able to understand this post. But I cannot. Then again, I confess not to understand the prior “waves” of STS either. In general, it seems to me that one should evaluate a theory (if that is what STS practitioners produce) based on whether it can it account for more facts with as minimal a conceptual apparatus as possible, where such an apparatus obviously needs to be coherent. But STS seems to be more trouble than it is worth on all three of these scores– (a) not clear how it does in accounting for facts (in part because practitioners generally seem allergic to establishing facts independent of theory [of course, facts are theory-laden but there must be some establishment of facts independent of theory if the theorist wants to convince us to accept her theory rather than some other); (b) proliferation of concepts [often with an obvious attempt at sexy labels; e.g, 'agora'; 'mangle of practice']; and (c) [consequently] very hard to understand. I confess though that I do not read much STS because it long ago seemed to fail miserably, at least by criterion (c). Though I’m open to the suggestion that I’m just not smart enough to understand STS theory or that there is better work that I’m not aware of. (I’m not particularly open to the possibility that my criteria are inappropriate). FWIW.
ezrazuckerman
May 30, 2010 at 9:20 pm
Ill take a stab at ezra’s post…
Your criteria for evaluating theory is spot on, yet they may not be well-suited for assessing the theoretical fruits of STS. Here’s why.
Reviewing the past few waves of STS, much of what passes as “theory” is better understood as “sensitizing concepts”–frameworks which provide “a general sense of reference and guidance in approaching empirical instances” (Blumer 1954). The reasons why STS prefers this over “definitive concepts” is diffuse, but suffice it to say, if you are seeking clearly delimited and defined concepts, which actually go the distance in trying to measure something, look elsewhere. But this is okay, I’d argue, since most STS offers thick description over positive theory. As such, the point is not to pin down better and better what we mean by “heterogeneous engineering” (a favorite/useless term), but rather to employ such concepts in directing data collection and then later on, in more or less stylistic terms, to manage the masses of observations (I think STS fails here). I’ve often found myself that dropping the STS jargon in the final presentation changes little of my narrative.
dr
May 31, 2010 at 5:26 am
I agree with Ezra that STS is often opaque, particularly to those unfamiliar with its jargon. STSer’s really need to do better on this front. To be blunt, our writing skills (with a few exceptions like Shapin) suck.
On the other hand, STS has a lot of important and innovative things to say, this post included (I think).
Which just makes it all the more vital that we do a better job at communicating.
How about a rewrite so that Ezra (and I, and others) can understand you?
Justin Kraus
May 31, 2010 at 8:50 am
Dear all,
I think addressed a similar issue (from an ANT perspective) in a paper of mine where I introduced the notion of ‘heteromogeneous object’, i.e. an object (in this case the ERP) that acquires homogeneity by attracting (and manage) a set of heterogeneous relations. sorry for the self citation, but I’d be interested in your views:
Quattrone, P (2006) “What is IT?”: SAP, Accounting, and Visibility in a Multinational Organisation”, (with Trevor Hopper), Information and Organization, 2006, 16, pp. 212-250.
paolo
May 31, 2010 at 10:52 am
@all,
I would like to respond to some of these comments. Perhaps I should note ahead of time that this modest blog post is going to seem unsatisfactory to some readers.
@ezra,
The statement is made:
“In general, it seems to me that one should evaluate a theory (if that is what STS practitioners produce) based on whether it can it account for more facts with as minimal a conceptual apparatus as possible”
First, the comment sort of reminds me of what MacKenzie and Callon would say about how economists tend to make theories in their work on “performativity.” That is, in the field of economics (and elsewhere) there is a professional/normative emphasis on creating theories that “account for more facts with as minimal a conceptual apparatus as possible.” It is my reading of STS that keeping conceptual apparatuses minimal is not a priority, which perhaps occasionally come at the cost of complete coherence for readers. Hence, I would say that you might be accurate in questioning whether or not STSers are all that concerned, as a group, with creating parsimonious theories. However, there are some branches of STS that concern themselves with, above all, the messiness of extant existence, and I’m thinking of Law here (http://org.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/3/331). Put another way: the inability or unwillingness to adopt an approach to theory similar to the one you suggest is not a barrier to publication in STS journals.
Second, STSers problematize terms such as “theory” and “fact” from the start, even while selfishly promoting their theories or demanding the fact-hood status of their data. It is no small matter, in a field that challenges the notion that “facts” (in the stable, conventional, scientific sense of the word) truly exist to create theories that account for as many of these things as possible. Perhaps STSers have gotten themselves in a double-bind of sorts. This also returns us to my first comment in that STSers, with their research emphasis on scientific and technological practices that produce facts, concepts, and theories, are especially hesitant to over-impose their conceptual understandings of science, technology, and society in order to achieve those “thick descriptions” that are deemed of empirical value in the field (as dr mentioned). This might also have to do with practical matter at play here: the line between sociology and history is not as strong in STS as it might be elsewhere.
@dr,
Your post hints at where my post might have failed for ezra and Justin. In the 2nd (i.e., the last or just prior) wave of STS, thick descriptions based on sensitizing concepts was the norm. The mantra “follow the actors” had a hegemonic choke-hold on the field (but was questioned by a few scholars, especially the feminists) and nearly any journal editor during the 2nd wave would have told you to “go finer-grained” in your analysis (and this still happens to some extent). The outcome of these endeavors was a mass of pin-point ethnographies set in (as Merton might have put it) strategic research sites, which produced and supported a series of sensitizing concepts that were frequently or only occasionally useful in other settings.
The statement is made:
“…manage the masses of observations (I think STS fails here).”
This is a fair critique of STS. Rarely do we see integrators of STS research as their research is often uncoordinated between scholars even if “schools” of thought do exist in STS. Massing-together slews of fine-grained studies, given the value of specificity and detail, is not doubt a place STS needs to go in the future.
@ezra and dr,
Because the 2nd wave encouraged scholars to produce fine-grained analysis of specific locations (often at specific historical junctures), the advantage of the 3rd wave and, in particular, the “agora” concept when embedded in the “biography of artifacts” approach is that a broader picture emerges both spatially and over time. The biography approach basically suggests that not all machines are the same and as such we must study them individually and over time in order to get a better analytical grip on them. Hence, we cannot study “technology” in the general sense; studies done on one technology, STSers imagine, only have a small bearing on other studies of technology (unless they are really similar such as two studies being about “packaged software” or “genetic engineering”). Still, even these studies on particular technologies must be conducted over-time in order to capture the technology’s biography because technologies are rarely stable objects for long — they change repeatedly in multiple roll-outs to consumers; they get updated; they get localized when put into use; and yet, they are still the “same” product, to some extent. Take for example, “Windows” operating systems from Microsoft. Consider how many variants of Windows are out there. What does it even mean to say “I use Windows” (or MAC, for that matter)? So STSers like Pollock are suggesting that you cannot say “they are all Windows” the same way that a demographer might say “they are all divorces.” The set of assumptions necessary to go there are unacceptable to mainstream STSers. So, there is a deeply felt concern over sameness vs. difference, and a lack of willingness to conceptually railroad these issues (which would imply ignoring their complexity). On biography see: http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/3248
In addition to studying a technology from its earliest underpinnings to its contemporary manifestations, STSers are also increasingly “seeing” (and this is a perspective shift) how and when the technology changes as a process explicitly situated between levels or sites. For example, during the second wave it would have been entirely appropriate for a scholar to study the “use” of a technology. This study would be to a greater or lesser extent divorced from the design process and might even take the ready-made object as “given” (and not take issue with its origins). One might study the way that a new technology constrained, controlled, or configured the way a user adopted, localized, or used to the particular object. One might very well say then that technologies have qualities that impinge on users’ abilities to use them with latitude — for an extreme case consider how when you purchase a book on-line with a credit card, the system is not flexible; you cannot get the book without entering valid credit card numbers or supplying an address to ship it to, etc. Now, this hypothetical study might be met with another study of how children take or are given their parents’ credit cards to show how people can work-around the otherwise rigid system. And the thick descriptions would give way from one localized site to another in order to make supporting evidence, further specification of the concept, or to contrast the earlier finding or the resulting sensitizing concept (surely, in favor of a new or perhaps “sexier” concept name).
In contrast, the ‘agora’ concept raises the perspective of scholars in STS. This is somewhat akin to an STS readings of Scott’s “Seeing Like a State,” but that may not be entirely fair, even if it is useful for orienting this blog-post. The “agora” idea identifies that which is between sites as of interest for research. So, when localizing a product during implementation: we no longer want just a study of the technology being put to use. Instead, we ask: how is the system localized during interactions between the developers and local programmers; how do the interactions between sites and levels shape the new systems and shape their localization. Or, another study might be done to assess the extent of software recycling from one product to another. For example, when an HR system is “re-tooled” for use in nonprofit firms, even though it was built for forprofit firms, what is changed, what needs to be changed, and according to whose perspective? (as designers might want a more generic product while users might want one that “fits” them better) In the transition between organizational forms (i.e., the transition between forprofit and nonprofit firms) an exceptionally valuable site for gathering evidence would be captured during pilot studies wherein “test sites” help to assess the status of the new technology for use in their “type” of organization. In this way, the new systems will become generic enough for a new market/field/sector, but it will still contain some elements of the original test sites.
Now, all of these episodic and specific linkages unfolding at specified junctures between sites are each “slices” of the ongoing “agora.” At times, for example, the linkages between designers and users is tight and collaborative, and at other times the linkages between designers and users are loose and less than collaborative. Hence, making hard-and-fast theories that parsimoniously support facts is hard for STS; some might say, actively avoided.
Getting back: with enough of these slices, a more “global” (rather than local) view of technology is possible. I mentioned Scott’s work on states as a way to conceptualize this “lifting of perspective.” This might also be somewhat like the neo-institutional turn in organizational theory in that organizational entivitity was conceptually acceptable in sociology, history, and political science (and a few others) and notions like “field” helped to reshape the perspective of some organizational theorists.
The difference? STS scholars are not ready to abandon completely the localized, fine-grained study. Hence, their perspective is lifted away from the fine-grain, but only as a result of producing numerous fine-grained studies situated between sites/levels. Next, STSers may not be also entirely prepared to assume that sets of interests and goals are adopted by actors (for example, that managers consistently want to augment their organizational legitimacy).
If there is further interest in the agora idea, I would strongly suggest reading Kaniakakis’ work and Pollock and Williams’ all of whom are cultivating this perspective transition in STS.
nirowlan
May 31, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Thanks for the addition. Really interesting, especially the part about an STSers unwillingness to “railroad” issues of sameness and difference. In my own research, on coastal management systems (which are basically “packaged” sets different technological and cultural tools) there is a real tendency amongst western coastal managers, particularly in non-western contexts, to perform their own “packaged software” regardless of context and a corresponding incentive for local actors to hide or “re-tool” their own coastal management package software so as to attract foreign donors and/or prestige.
Justin Kraus
May 31, 2010 at 2:06 pm
@Justin,
I would be interested in seeing some of your work (and perhaps how it might related to my work on packaged software). Could you send a couple of links to njr12@psu.edu?
nirowlan
May 31, 2010 at 2:10 pm
“Perhaps STSers have gotten themselves in a double-bind of sorts.” Perhaps not perhaps. There is something sad, and in fact quite dangerous, about an intellectual field that twists itself into knots to the point that it effectively denies the possibility of knowledge –even while, as you say, claiming for itself the fruits associated with successful knowledge-claims. To repeat though, I hope I’m wrong in this reading of STS and I’m eager to be corrected. (Will require some facts though…)
ezrazuckerman
May 31, 2010 at 4:14 pm
[...] about technology as a sort of field of action rather than a specific object, a new idea is STS. Ezra responded with this comment: Hmm… with all due respect, seems to me that I should be able to understand this post. But I [...]
you probably shouldn’t mention bruno latour to ezra, definitely not « orgtheory.net
July 5, 2010 at 12:22 am