S.TRUEMAN PhD THESIS 2016

302

translation as a universal of the theory. Consequently, actor-network researchers may treat participant responses as relative while representing their own interpretations as the absolute truth. Again the researcher was aware of this early in the study and took conscious disciplined steps throughout discussing the model of translation to recognise and consider its applicability in analysing all of the data. The researcher did not engage in a deductive approach to test or refute the stages of translation as related to the study. Any inconsistencies with the model were factored into the analysis. No attempt to test or prove the theory was made. The last criticism concerns actor-network theory’s alleged Machiavellian orientation (Amsterdamska, 1990) through which actor-network theory pays most interest in understanding how things become aligned and centred (Calas & Smircich, 1999). Actor network theory is criticised for placing an over-emphasis on control and management. This is (allegedly) illustrated by the focus of actor-network theory studies on privileged, strong actors who aim to create stronger networks, and its (supposed) blindness towards other possible ways in which networks might develop (Gad et al., 2010). Additionally, those who exercise power are very often humans portrayed as central to the network, obfuscating actor-network theory’s claim that power is a function of networks rather than actors (Whittle & Spicer, 2008). In response the researcher adopted a stance of maintaining ‘sensitivity to complexity’ throughout the study (Gad et al., 2010, p. 59). Further, Latour (1986) distinguished a diffusion model of power from a translation model of power (Fox, 2000). The former assumes successful command from a central source, through a chain of command from a central commander; an anathema to the researcher’s approach to the