Science for Education Today, 2024, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 80–95
© Vlasova O. A., Kornienko A. G., 2024
UDC: 
1(091)+37.013.46

Actor-network interpretation of phenomena and current issues of education: The historicist grounds and specificity

Vlasova O. A. 1 (Saint-Petersburg, Russian Federation), Kornienko A. G. 1 (Saint-Petersburg , Russian Federation)
1 Saint-Petersburg State University
Full text (Open Access) — Downloaded 79
Abstract: 

Introduction. The research analyzes the changes of ontological and methodological grounds of the philosophy of education in the modern world. The aim of the research is to identify the historicist grounds and specificity of the actor-network interpretation of phenomena and current problems in education.
Materials and Methods. The study employs complex and interdisciplinary approaches. The data sources for this problematic research include the latest scholarly publications, tending to apply actor-network theory in the field of pedagogy and philosophy of education and published in academic journals between 2000 and 2023. The typologisation and comparative methods, along with contextual and textual analysis are used in order to analyze contemporary discussions in this field.
Results. Based on the most recent studies, this work reveals the grounds and identifies the specificity of actor-network interpretation of some educational phenomena and problems. During the research the basis of actor-network pedagogy is revealed as historicist ontology, which overcomes the opposition between classical historicism and relativism. The article demonstrates how the reconsideration of ontological and methodological foundations influences the building of terminological glossary of the philosophy of education. The concept of ‘educational spatiality’ is contextualized, which in its turn, makes it possible to analyze a network of educational practices as a complex. Apart from that, the potential of using the tools of the actor-network theory is characterized in a context of research of different educational models from a historical perspective, in materially and contextually heterogeneous networks. It is also claimed that due to its multidisciplinary nature, the actor-network theory can be successfully used to problematize educational phenomena and develop specific teaching strategies.
Conclusions. It is demonstrated that actor-network theory, due to its reliance on a new model of historicism, can provide a multidisciplinary orientation of pedagogy and its lability in relation to the modern situation.

Keywords: 

Historicist grounds; Educational models; Poly-disciplinary methodology; Educational spatiality; Pedagogical practices

For citation:
Vlasova O. A., Kornienko A. G. Actor-network interpretation of phenomena and current issues of education: The historicist grounds and specificity. Science for Education Today, 2024, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 80–95. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2401.04
References: 
  1. Emikh N. A., Fomina M. N. Specifics of the new paradigm of higher education in the context of its digitalization. Science for Education Today,2023, vol. 13 (4), pp. 100–121. (In Russian) DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2304.05 URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=54390175
  2. Pushkarev Y. V., Pushkareva E. A. Evaluating the development of reflexive personality skills in the conditions of distance educational technologies. Science for Education Today, 2022, vol. 12 (4), pp. 92–118. (In Russian) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2204.05 URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=49425111 
  3. Bordovsky G. A. Problems and tasks of higher pedagogical education at the present stage of country’s development. Higher Education in Russia, 2023, vol. 32 (6), pp. 9–18. (In Russian) DOI: https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2023-32-6-9-18  URL:https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=54145950
  4. Frolova E. V., Ryabova T. M., Rogach O. V., Zuikina A. V. Conflicts in the school system: Key problems, specifics and development factors. Perspectives of Science and Education, 2019, no. 3, pp. 227–239. (In Russian) DOI: https://doi.org/10.32744/pse.2019.3.17 URL:https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=38545601
  5. Vlasova O. A. Discussions on historicism in education and transformation of educational models. Science for Education Today, 2022, vol. 12 (5), pp. 57–70. (In Russian) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2205.04 URL:https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=49623128
  6. Begalinov A. S., Ashilova M. S., Begalinova K. K. On the image of higher education in the post-COVID world: Formation and development of the new type of thinking. Science for Education Today, 2021, vol. 11 (1), pp. 110–123. (In Russian) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2101.07 URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=44849696
  7. Denisova G. S., Polonskaya I. N., Susimenko E. V. Actor-network theory: Innovative aspects of sociological methodology. Bulletin of the Institute of Sociology, 2022, vol. 13 (2), pp. 137–158. (In Russian) DOI: https://doi.org/10.19181/vis.2022.13.2.797 URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=49205254
  8. Orekhovsky P. A. “Actor-network-theory” of B. Latour and “Culture factor” in the analysis of economic processes. Social Sciences and Contemporary World, 2017, no. 3, pp. 157–167. (In Russian) URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=29333820
  9. Vyatkin D. “Plasma in itself”: Between ontology and epistemology. Philosophical Literary Journal “Logos”, 2017, vol. 27 (3), pp. 57–82. (In Russian) DOI: https://doi.org/10.22394/0869-5377-2017-3-57-80 URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=29077882

10. Sokolov B. G. The post-apocalypse and the post-history. The Bulletin of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies, 2023. vol. 39 (2), pp. 274–288. (In Russian) DOI:  https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2023.206 URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=54114857

11. Fatenkov A. N. Bruno Latour’s ontology as technologized berkeleianism. Russian Journal of Philosophical Sciences, 2019, vol. 62 (9), pp. 68–87. (In Russian) DOI: https://doi.org/10.30727/0235-1188-2019-62-9-68-87 URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=41806766

12. Hetland P. T. Fenwick and R. Edwards: Actor-network theory in education. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 2012, vol. 7 (1), pp. 70–72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18261/ISSN1891-943X-2012-01-06 

13. Fenwick T., Edwards R. Actor-Network Theory in Education, Routledge, 2010, 200 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203849088

14. Waltz S. Giving Artifacts a voice? Bringing into account technology in educational analysis. Educational Theory, 2004, vol. 54 (2), pp. 157–172. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2004.00012.x

15. Fenwick T., Edwards R. (eds.) Researching Education Through Actor-Network Theory, Wiley-Blackwell, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118275825

16. Fenwick T., Edwards R. (eds.) Revisiting Actor-Network Theory in Education, Routledge, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315114521

17. Nespor J. Devices and educational change. In: T. Fenwick, R. Edwards (eds.) Researching Education Through Actor-Network Theory, Wiley-Blackwell, 2012, pp. 1–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118275825.ch1  URL: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118275825.ch1

18. Mukhopadhyay R., Sriprakash A. Target-driven reforms: Education for all and the translations of equity and inclusion in India. Journal of Education Policy, vol. 28 (3), pp. 306–321. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2012.718362  URL: https://publications.azimpremjiuniversity.edu.in/361/

19. MсGregor J. Spatiality and the place of the material in schools. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 2004, vol. 12 (3), pp. 347–372. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14681360400200207

20. Leander K., Lovvorn J. Literacy Networks: Following the circulation of texts, bodies, and objects in the schooling and online gaming of one youth. Cognition and Instruction, 2006, vol. 24 (3), pp. 291–340. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2403_1

21. Tummons J. Education as a mode of existence: A Latourian inquiry into assessment validity in higher education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 2020, vol. 52 (1), pp. 45–54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2019.1586530

22. Tummons J. Ethnographies of higher education and modes of existence: Using Latour's philosophical anthropology to construct faithful accounts of higher education practice. Theory and Method in Higher Education Research, Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, 2019, vol. 5, pp. 207–223. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/S2056-375220190000005013 URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/S2056-375220190000005013/full/html

23. Tummons J. Higher education, theory, and modes of existence: Thinking about universities with Latour. Higher Education Research and Development, 2021, vol. 40 (6), pp. 1313–1325. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1804337

24. Fenwick T. (un)Doing standards in education with actor-network theory. Journal of Education Policy, 2010, vol. 25 (2), pp. 117–133. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930903314277 URL: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02680930903314277

25. Mulcahy D. Managing spaces: (Re)working relations of strategy and spatiality in vocational education and training. Studies in Continuing Education, 2007, vol. 29 (2), pp. 143–162. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01580370701403266

26. Park Eun J. For technological literacy education: comparing the asymmetrical view of Heidegger and symmetrical view of Latour on technology. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 2022, vol. 41 (5), pp. 551–565. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-022-09841-9

27. Portin F. The diplomatic teacher: The purpose of the teacher in Gert Biesta’s philosophy of education in dialogue with the political philosophy of Bruno Latour. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 2020, vol. 39 (5), pp. 533–548. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-020-09712-1

28. Czahajda R., Cairovic N., Cernko M. Live online education efficiency mediators from the actor network theory perspective. Frontiers in Education, 2022, vol. 7, pp. 859783. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.859783

29. Tatnall A. Researching computers and education through actor-network theory. In: A. Tatnall, N.  Mavengere (eds.), 1st International Conference on Sustainable ICT, Education, and Learning (SUZA), Springer Cham, 2019, pp. 78–88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28764-1_10

30. Rowan L., Bigum C. Actor network theory and the study of online learning. In: G. Davies, E. Stacey (eds.), Quality Education a Distance, Springer New York, 2003, pp. 179–188. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35700-3_33 

31. Oral S. B. Thinking education through object-oriented philosophy: A triple pedagogical movement. In: R. S. Webster, S. Stolz (eds.) Measuring Up: Proceedings of the 43rd PESA Annual Conference, Philosophy of Education Society (PESA), 2013, pp. 158–168. URL: https://pesa.org.au/images/papers/2013-papers/Thinking_Education_Through_Object-Oriented_Philosophy-_A_Triple_Pedagogical_Movement_Sevket_Benhur_Oral.pdf

32. Dickinson C. Bruno Latour and the myth of autonomous academic discipline: Rethinking education in the light of various modes of existence. Transformation in Higher Education, 2019, vol. 4, pp. 75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4102/the.v4i0.75

Date of the publication 29.02.2024