1. 1 Meltdown: Why ANT? John Law Centre for Science Studies Lancaster University

2. 2 A journey? 1.Sociology of science Merton Scientific method Scientific content to be protected by the Cudos norms Communism Universalism Disinterestedness Scepticism A sociology of scientific institutions: not scientific content

3. 3 A journey? 2.The Kuhnian revolution Paradigms Puzzle solving (active agency!) Pragmatism (tool) Practice Vision/seeing Community based – and training

4. 4 A journey? 3.Sociology of Scientific Knowledge Paradigm is a shared culture! Used by scientists Solving problems generated by Paradigm itself Social Interests Ie: a form of the sociology of knowledge Society > shapes culture/knowledge/science

5. 5 A journey? 4.Material Semiotics Relationality Process Heterogeneous practice Everything an effect Potentially revisable Collision

6. 6 Practice? Analytical term Practice - in Practice!!

7. 7 Welfare Quality®: outline EU FP 6 Project; 2004-2009; €17m Farm animal Welfare Standards/labelling Animal Science and Social Science

8. 8 Policy practice? Animal science views Industry stakeholders’ views Policy Recommendations

9. 9 Enacting the public in policy practice? Public views of animal welfare Animal science views Industry stakeholders’ views Policy Recommendations

10. 10 The public multiple There are several different practices So we get the public multiple!

11. 11 Practising three publics? 1.Survey Public 2.Focus Group public 3.‘ PowerPoint public ’

12. 12 WQ: versions of the public Animal science views Industry stakeholders’ views Policy Recommendations Public 1: ‘Survey public’ Public 2: ‘Focus group public’ Public 3: ‘Power-point publics’

13. 13 The basic question How are they done in practice? A study in (social science) practice!

14. 14 1. Survey Public

15. 15 Survey practice process; assemblage heterogeneous set of relations Done, enacted, in time

16. 16 Survey Results? Collectivity? The world = statistical collection

17. 17 The survey public enacted % thinking of animal welfare ‘in general’ and ‘when buying’, 7 countries; High level of interest; quite high ‘when buying’

18. 18 Doing the survey person … in practice Survey: enacts persons: self-quantifying individuals containers of somewhat stable attitudes

19. 19 The survey public What goes into this? - process; assemblage, practices, effort, time What does it enact? - specific claims - person as container of (welfare-concerned) attitudes - collectivity / public as quantified aggregate What comes out and circulates? - statistical summary Concealed? - the practices of production - specificity/arbitrariness of person/collectivity

20. 20 Survey public in political practice Industry: public has an unrealistic/idealistic view; and won’t pay anyway! Public views of animal welfare: important, needs information Political position in relation to industry stakeholders

21. 21 2. Focus Group Public

22. 22 Better alternative? More realistic? / politically subtle? The Focus Group?

23. 23 Focus Group practice Enacts person as storyteller Circulation? Stories! Collective as story/ position ….?

24. Focus group public enacted 1.Animal itself and its environment 2.Naturalistic –Environment (green fields); outdoor living; natural behaviours; being ‘fit for their environments’ 3.Holistic –Can’t be broken down 4.Inseparable from other issues –Sustainability, quality, taste, human health, GMOs

25. 25 Focus Group Public What goes into this? –A process, assemblage, practices What does it enact? –Specific claims –Person as a story-teller –Collectivity as typical/illustrative stories What comes out and circulates? –Stories and views about welfare Concealed? –the practices of production –specificity/arbitrariness of person/collectivity

26. 26 Focus group public in political practice Animal science views: more atomistic, less naturalistic Public views of animal welfare: holistic/naturalistic stories Political position in relation to animal science

27. 27 3. PowerPoint Public

28. 28 Berlin, May 2007

29. 29 Enacting the PowerPoint public Locating/enacting the public as an actor in a network/system Hetero- geneous Reciprocal relations Public version no. 3?

30. 30 Meeting politics PowerPoint: from stakeholders’ meeting! Political again In relation to (some) angry stakeholders … ‘consumers naive, and cost-conscious’

31. 31 Enacting performative publics Animal science views Industry stakeholders’ views Policy Recommendations Public 2: ‘Focus group public’ Public 3: PowerPoint Public 1: ‘Survey public’

32. 32 Concluding …

33. 33 Practices … in practice!

34. 34 STS Not just about science and technology (spatiality, organisation, health care, education, psychology, politics, embodiment ….) A set of techniques (sensibility?) ANT (material semiotics) attends to practices

35. 35 Attention to Practices Analytical unit Detectable patterning/strategy Of heterogeneous materials/relations That enacts reals (and representations) At particular locations/sites That may or may not hold and may or may not be circulable/translatable to other sites

36. 36 Abandoning Sociological Assumptions? A somewhat stable social Explaining particular phenomena Or? Practices assembling/enacting realities (social/material) Seeing what holds as these realities circulate

37. 37 Sociology and STS: relations Slow sociology (the how problem) Relational enactment, not predictable structuring No outside view Final thought: the case study (theory in practice)