Weaving Network Maps through Actor – Network Theory 

Recommended Courses: Media Studies, Sociology, Communication Studies, Cultural Studies, Environmental Communication 

Learning Outcomes: 

1. Define Actor-Network Theory (ANT). 
2. Apply Actor-Network Theory by mapping interactions between human and non-human objects to explore how agency is distributed in everyday life. 
3. Critically evaluate the strengths and limitations of Actor-Network Theory (ANT). 

Abstract: 

This teaching activity introduces students to Actor-Network Theory (ANT) by encouraging them to map social interactions while considering the influence of non-human actors. Using a hands-on network mapping exercise, students will identify and analyze how objects, technologies, and infrastructures shape their everyday interactions. The activity is designed to achieve three key learning outcomes: first, students will define ANT and its core concepts, gaining an understanding of how agency is distributed across networks; second, they will apply the theory by creating their own network maps, demonstrating how non-human entities act and influence decision-making; and finally, students will critically evaluate ANT by discussing its strengths and weaknesses, enabling them to become critical users of the theory. Through case study discussions and “Weave your network map” activity, students will deepen their engagement with ANT, developing a more nuanced perspective on the complex interplay between human and non-human actors in social systems. 

Keywords: Actor-Network theory, Network map, Case Study Analysis, Critical Thinking, Human & non – human factor 

Introduction and Rationale 

A series of heterogeneous elements, both human and non-human are constantly reforming relations. These relations do not preexist in the network but are generated through interactions, translating and transforming each actor within the network (Latour, 2005). Actor Network Theory (ANT) helps in identifying the stakeholders involved in a network. Actors play a role in changing scenarios (Marcon Nora et al., 2022). Elements in a network is not automatic; they only work through the involvement of actors and organizations that reproduce elements and connections in their activities, and their transformation involves changes in institutions, values, technologies, and interactions in various sectors and on various scales (Holtz et al., 2015). The proposed activity, “Weave your network map” is seen to be effective because it helps to transform an abstract and often challenging theoretical framework into an interactive and experiential learning process. 

Through the activity students move beyond theoretical definitions by actively mapping networks, allowing them to see how objects, technologies, and infrastructures influence interactions in tangible ways. 

One of the most compelling aspects of ANT is its rejection of hierarchical distinctions between humans and objects, instead recognizing objects as active agents (Ajvazi, 2022). This perspective enables students to examine environmental issues, such as climate change and ecological protection, through an ANT lens, emphasizing that power is distributed rather than centralized. The case study used in this pedagogical piece is the Lake Erie Bill of Rights (LEBOR) (Toledo, 2019). Using a case study as an example helps students widen their scope of applying theory by providing concrete, real-world scenarios that illustrate abstract concepts in action. Introducing a case study will further help students critically evaluate how the theory can be applied in real-world scenarios. 

The Case of Lake Erie Personhood 

Case based learning is often seen helpful in classroom which presents students with real-world problems (often in the form of case studies) to solve. Case-based learning is an effective way to teach complex concepts and promote critical thinking and problem-solving skills (Kim, 2015, p. 30). Class discussion will begin with an opening question: Can a lake have rights like a person? ANT reveals how human and non-human entities shape social arrangements, extending the notion of agency beyond human actors (Latour, 2005). 

The Lake Erie Bill of Rights (LEBOR) was a groundbreaking legal initiative passed in Toledo, Ohio, in 2019, granting Lake Erie personhood status. This initiative emerged in response to the 2014 algal bloom crisis, which left half a million residents without clean drinking water. However, despite its ambitious goals, a federal judge struck it down, citing legal conflicts with corporate interests and existing property rights. Nevertheless, LEBOR marked a significant shift in environmental law, as it was the first attempt in the U.S. to grant rights to an entire ecosystem. 

The lake itself, algal blooms, legal texts, activists, courts, and corporations all influenced the debate and its outcome. ANT helps us see legal and environmental struggles as dynamic processes where various actors—government bodies, residents, and even natural elements—continuously negotiate power and influence. The court’s rejection of LEBOR highlights how legal institutions and corporate interests played dominant roles in shaping the network, reinforcing existing structures that prioritize human and corporate interests over ecosystem rights. 

Activity Title: The activity will achieve the second learning outcome mentioned in the pedagogical piece; the activity is titled as “Weave Your Network Map”. 

Description of the Activity 

Activity Time: 12 minutes 

Materials Needed: A4-sized white sheet or blank paper, pen/pencil 

The activity commences with a simplified example provided by the faculty to facilitate understanding of the concept. For instance, a hand-drawn pizza delivery network map (Appendix Fig. 1) effectively illustrates Actor-Network Theory (ANT) in action. Faculty members are encouraged to create their own relatable examples. In this context, the pizza is not merely a passive object; it actively influences decision-making. Students have demonstrated a clear comprehension of the network map when the teacher explains it using a concrete example. For instance, someone with a gluten allergy may be influenced by the availability (or lack) of gluten-free options, while a promotional deal in the app may push a group to order more than they originally planned. 

Implementation Steps: 

1. Students will work in pairs to identify at least 3-5 non-human actors they have interacted with over the last couple of days. Providing a specific timeframe helps students easily recall non-human objects they have interacted. 
2. Students uncomfortable with drawing can write the names of human and non-human actors instead. 
3. They will create a network map illustrating how these non-human objects influence their actions. 

Discussion & Debriefing: 

After completing the network mapping activity, have the students return to their seats and engage in a group discussion where they will reflect on their observations and insights. During the discussion, the instructor can ask guiding questions to encourage students to think critically about the role of non-human actors in social interactions. Here, the instructor can provide cues by referencing examples from the pizza diagram to illustrate how non-human objects influence decisions and interactions (see “Appendix” for scenarios). 

Potential discussion prompts can include: 

1. Did you find a shift in how you perceive social interactions after considering non-human actors? 
2. How did non-human objects seem to “act” or shape decisions? 
3. Did this mapping exercise encourage you to rethink the definition of agency? If so, in what ways? 

After the roundtable discussion, conclude by emphasizing the importance of recognizing the influence of both human and non-human actors in shaping interactions and decisions.  

Strengths and Weaknesses of ANT 

After the activity it is important to introduce students to the strengths and weakness of the theory. This will help them with the third learning outcome presented in this pedagogical piece, which is to be critical users of this theory. Teachers can encourage students to think about other strengths and limitations of this theory as the list is not exhaustive. 

Strengths: 

• ANT provides a comprehensive framework for analyzing complex social phenomena by treating both human and non-human actors as active agents. 
• It adopts a non-hierarchical approach, recognizing that objects and technologies can influence networks as much as human participants. 

Weaknesses: 

• Mapping actor-networks can be overwhelming due to the infinite connections present in real-world settings. 
• The Lake Erie case illustrates the challenge of granting legal status to non-human entities. Practical questions arise, such as who makes decisions on behalf of these entities? 

Limitations and Variations of the Activity 

The first limitation of the network map is subjective interpretation. The identification and representation of actors and their relationships can be subjective and influenced by personal biases. However, students can create multiple maps or layers to represent different aspects of the network, and working in groups can help bring in diverse perspectives, making the map more reliable. Secondly, scalability issues arise when the number of actors and relationships increases, causing the network map to become cluttered and difficult to interpret. To address this, students can use aggregation techniques to group similar actors or relationships together.  

Additionally, students can be encouraged to utilize digital mapping tools, such as Gepas, to create interactive and dynamic network visualizations. Virtual collaboration can also be facilitated through online platforms like Google Jamboard or Microsoft Whiteboard, enabling students to work together on mapping and group work. 

Appraisal 

This activity provides an interactive, low-stakes opportunity for students to explore the role of non-human actors in shaping social interactions and decision-making. Students confirm that combining theory, research, and real-life scenarios, based on their daily interactions, helps them make meaningful connections between abstract concepts and everyday experiences. One student noted that using a case study example broadened their understanding of applying theory beyond traditional human-centered perspectives. 

During the discussion, students appreciated the mapping exercise as a hands-on approach to examining agency, as it allowed them to visualize complex networks of influence. However, some students struggled to identify non-human objects in their network maps. This difficulty reflects the complexity of Actor-Network Theory (ANT) analysis, as scholars argue that an ANT practitioner must “trudge like an ant,” assembling even the smallest connections (Latour, 2005). The challenge of recognizing non-human actors highlights the necessity of careful observation and iterative thinking in network mapping. 

The activity and subsequent discussion will raise awareness of the non-human influences shaping students’ daily interactions. They will begin to recognize how non-human objects—such as phone apps, doors, algorithms, and Wi-Fi signals—affect their decisions. As Latour (2005) argues, agency is not exclusive to human beings but is distributed across networks. Moreover, students will observe a shift in power dynamics, where non-human entities like technology and infrastructure play crucial roles in decision-making processes. 

A majority of the feedback indicated that having the instructor provide cues and examples helped reinforce the concept of distributed agency, making the discussion more accessible and insightful. By engaging in this exercise, students gain a deeper appreciation for how ANT challenges conventional understandings of agency, ultimately expanding their analytical perspectives. 

Competing Interest: The author of this article confirms that there are no relevant financial or non- financial competing interests to report. 

Funding Details: No funding was received. 

Disclosure statement: The authors report there are no competing interests to declare. 

References:  

Ajvazi, I. (2022). Reading Bruno Latour’s reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-Theory. https://doi.org/10.22541/au.164848884.43894373/v1 

Holtz, G., Alkemade, F., De Haan, F., Köhler, J., Trutnevyte, E., Luthe, T., Halbe, J., Papachristos, G., Chappin, E., & Kwakkel, J. (2015). Prospects of modeling societal transitions: Position paper of an emerging community. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 17, 41–58. https://doi-org.ezproxy.bgsu.edu/10.1016/j.eist.2015.05.006. 

Kim, J. (2015). Case-based learning: A review of the literature. Journal of Education for Business, 90(1), 29-36. 

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford University Press. 

Marcon Nora, G. A., Alberton, A., & Ayala, D. H. (2022). Stakeholder theory and actor‐network theory: The stakeholder engagement in energy transitions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(1), 673-685. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3168. 

Appendix: 

Fig.1. 

In a pizza-related scenario, different elements in the network (both human and non-human) could include: 

Scenario 1:  

• Actor: Customer
• Action: Places order for pizza through food delivery app
• Other Actors:
  • • Food Delivery App (FDA)  
    • Algorithm 
    • Pizza Restaurant (PR) 
    • Ingredients and other objects used to prepare Pizza 
    • Delivery Driver (DD) 

• Network:

1. 1. Customer interacts with FDA (places order)
   2. FDA communicates with PR (sends order details)
   3. PR prepares pizza and hands it over to DD
   4. DD delivers pizza to Customer

 Outcome: Customer receives pizza, and the transaction is successful 

Scenario 2: App Hangs, Customer Changes Decision (ANT in action)_ 

• Actor: Customer
• Action: Tries to place order for pizza through food delivery app, but the app hangs
• Other Actors:
  • • Food Delivery App (FDA) 
    • Alternative Food Delivery App (AFA) 
    • Pizza Restaurant (PR) 
    • Delivery Driver (DD) 

• Network:

1. 1. Customer interacts with FDA (tries to place order), but FDA fails (app hangs)
   2. Customer becomes frustrated and considers alternative options
   3. Customer interacts with AFA (places order through alternative app)
   4. AFA communicates with PR (sends order details)
   5. PR prepares pizza and hands it over to DD
   6. DD delivers pizza to Customer

Outcome: Customer receives pizza, but through a different app (AFA) 

Jisha Jacob is a second-year PhD student at the School of Media and Communication at Bowling Green State University. Her research interests span interpersonal communication, organizational communication, gender and communication, and media studies. Her work examines how communication influences social interactions, workplace dynamics, and media narratives, with a particular focus on gender and cultural factors. 

With experience in both academia and industry, she takes an interdisciplinary approach to studying communication practices in digital and organizational spaces. Her research includes ethnographic studies, media analysis, and investigations into the role of social media influencers in consumer behavior. Her current projects explore how women in corporate environments communicate with top management and how cultural expectations shape career trajectories. 

Beyond research, she is passionate about teaching and fostering critical discussions in the classroom. She is currently Instructor of Record at Bowling Green State University.