Actor-Network Theory in Entrepreneurship
Actor-Network Theory: Do Objects Have Agency in Entrepreneurship?
Actor-Network Theory (ANT), created by Bruno Latour, Michel Callon, and John Law, offers a radical way to look at how businesses are built. It describes a “material-semiotic" method of analysis that is distinct from mainstream network analysis.
The key difference? ANT argues that non-human objects (technology, money, prototypes, contracts) are nearly as important in a network as human actors.
The "Gun" Analogy: Understanding Hybrid Agency
To understand how an object can have "agency," we look to a famous example provided by Latour (1999) regarding a person holding a gun:
“You are different with the gun in your hand; the gun is different with you holding it. You are another subject because you hold the gun; the gun is another object because it has entered into a relationship with you.”
Korsgaard (2011) interprets this to mean that neither the gun nor the person kills alone. The action is executed by the combination of the person and the gun. Therefore, human agency is not merely a human phenomenon; it relies on non-human elements to be executable.
Applying ANT to Entrepreneurship
Korsgaard applied this theory to the study of startups. He argues that ANT is superior to the older Discovery Theories that have dominated entrepreneurship literature.
In the ANT view, opportunities are not "discovered" waiting in the world; they are constructed through the assembly of networks. Key characteristics of this view include:
- Agency is Distributed: Agency is an effect of the network, not a trait housed in a single "heroic" founder.
- Non-Linear Process: Actors follow an indeterminate path subject to continuous change.
- Temporary Markets: Entrepreneurship creates markets that are temporary. The market isn't "there" waiting; the entrepreneur mobilizes actors to create a temporarily stable network that acts as a market.
The Power of "Translation"
The core mechanism of ANT is Translation. This is the process through which a complex network of diverse elements comes to be represented by a single entity.
For example, Apple is a massive, messy network of software, hardware, factories, supply chains, and employees. However, Steve Jobs came to represent (translate) that whole network into a single voice.
Therefore, the goal of the entrepreneur is not just to have an idea, but to successfully shape a network involving both human and non-human elements to enable mobilization.
1. Actor-Network Theory and Effectuation Theory
Actor-Network Theory (ANT) shares a "constructionist" DNA with Sarasvathy’s Effectuation Theory. While Effectuation advises founders to start with "Bird in Hand" (means), ANT expands the definition of those means to include non-human actors like prototypes, algorithms, and contracts. Both theories reject the idea of a pre-existing market waiting to be discovered. Instead, they view the market as an artifact created through the interaction of the founder and their available resources. For ANT, the "Effectual" process is essentially a "Translation" where these diverse human and material means are aligned into a functioning network.
2. Actor-Network Theory and Social Capital Theory
Actor-Network Theory fundamentally upgrades Social Capital Theory by removing the "social" limit. Traditional Social Capital Theory argues that success depends on human relationships and trust. ANT counters that a network is only stable if it includes non-human allies. A founder may have excellent human connections (Social Capital), but without the "material" actors—a working app, a patent, or a signed lease—the venture remains an abstraction. In ANT, the strength of a network is not just who you know, but what objects you have enrolled to lock those relationships in place.
3. Actor-Network Theory and Discovery Theory
Actor-Network Theory serves as the primary critique of Discovery Theory. Discovery Theory (e.g., Kirzner) treats opportunities as objective "mountains" waiting to be climbed by an alert entrepreneur. ANT argues these mountains do not exist until they are built. An opportunity is not a hidden gem to be found but a precarious assembly of people, technologies, and beliefs. Thus, the "discovery" is actually an act of engineering: the entrepreneur does not "see" a gap in the market; they construct a network that creates the gap and fills it simultaneously.
4. Actor-Network Theory and Institutional Theory
Actor-Network Theory provides the micro-foundation for Institutional Theory. Institutional Theory posits that firms need "legitimacy" to survive, but it often treats this as an abstract social judgment. ANT reveals that legitimacy is actually material. A startup becomes "legitimate" not just through words, but through "immutable mobiles"—physical documents like incorporation papers, audited financial statements, and office badges. These non-human actors perform the work of legitimacy, stabilizing the institution and making the venture appear "real" to investors and the public.
5. Actor-Network Theory and Bricolage Theory
The concept of "Translation" in Actor-Network Theory parallels the "making do" of Bricolage Theory. Bricolage describes the entrepreneur as a tinkerer who combines unrelated resources to solve a problem. ANT adds that these resources have their own agency. When a bricoleur uses a piece of code or a discarded machine, they are not just using a passive tool; they are negotiating with a non-human actor that shapes the final outcome. The "bricolage" is thus a dialogue between the human intent and the material constraints/affordances of the objects being used.