Discussion of How Computing Is an Assemble - Essay Example

CONTEMPORARY COMPUTING CAN BE SEEN AS AN ASSEMBLAGE. DISCUSS. By of the of the of the School 5 July 2015 Introduction Computing refers to the study of computers, computer systems and the means of their construction and programming i.e. hardware and software. It can also be said to be the application of computer technology in the completion of computer-related tasks. According to Rosenbloom, computing explicitly and implicitly encompasses transformation of information through processing (Rosenbloom, 2013). Hence it is most often referred to as information and computation. Computation in this case is defined as the process of information transformation. Information is the structure or pattern of binary choices by which an uncertainty can be resolved. Transformation is understood as the process through which computational operations are executed so as to alter the information. Computing involves hardware and software which specify and execute the transformation of information. The notion of transformation encompasses all other activities such as acquisition, transmission, storage, analysis, understanding, presentation and application (Rosenbloom, 2013). Hence this paper is a discussion on the topic “contemporary computing can be seen as an assemblage.” Actor network theory This theory was formulated by Michael Callon, John Law and Bruno Latour who are French theorists. The theory seeks to explore and transform the views of social scientists in regard to relationship of the society to technology and other non-human actors (Banks, 2011). From the analysis of these theorists, actors and actants take up the progressive constitution of a network. This is dependent upon how the interaction between them prevails. Hence it means the identities and qualities of the actors are defined while negotiating between the human and non-human actants. Both the actors and actants have a common scene in reconstructing the network of interactions for the stabilization of the system. However, it should be noted that it is the actors which put the actants in the system for circulation. This is the feature that marks the major difference between the actors and actants. NB: Actors are the elements in a system influencing others in a network and they can be human beings, machines or even artifacts. Actants are non-humans with influential system elements in a network. Scales on which actants act in the assemblage The development of the actor network theory was to invent a language that would account for entities. The entities are for the attribution of nature, society and meaning and this is referred to as the assemblage. This would further provide the basis for exploring the properties of the actor networks. Assemblage refers to the joining together of system components for the accomplishment of a particular purpose. The actor network theory applies simplest net properties onto which it adds an actor for performing some work. This addition of an actor results into a deep modification which have different levels/scales of performance. These are small/large scale, far/close and inside/outside (Bruno, 1990). Far/close scale This defines the proximity or distance of networks. Disconnecting elements close to each other is likely to result in an infinite remoteness when their connections are analyzed. This contrasts infinitely distant elements. This is due to their tendency of getting close again at any attempt of bringing back their connections. Actants have a likelihood of opposing proximity and connections. This is because they can be far from one element while being close to another at the same time hence enhancing assemblage. Small scale/ large scale The concept of networks deletes the distinction of micro-macro that has ever since plagued the social theory. This is because no network is bigger than another but rather simply longer or has a more intense connection. A network notion easily follows the transformation of poorly connected elements into an intensely connected one and back. This means actors design the number and topography of connections. Actants follow strategically the number of connections an element commands and whether it loses its importance when the connections are lost. Inside/ outside scale A network has no boundary between the outside and inside i.e. has no outside or inside. Hence there is no need for filling the space between the connections. Actants may not necessarily need a space to act in assemblage because they are non-human. The actor network theory at times pre-supposes all network actants to have equal agency in an assemblage. Yet this is not usually the case since some components are like nodes in the network. These have a gravitational point of focus for the agency of actants in the assemblage. How actor network theory actions enhance management functions Management functions are daily operational processes in an organization. They are planning, decision making, coordination/ liason, organizing, control and monitoring (Gardner, 2002). Planning involves analyzing current situations of a business while predicting future scenarios. Goals established therefore are consistent with the general strategic aims of the organization. Decision making – decisions in an organization maybe structured, semi structured and unstructured. Structured decisions are foreseen and planned for hence are solved by applying set generic rules. Semi structured decisions only require a portion of judgment and initiative. They can be predicted yet are not vulnerable to any rigid application of prescribed rules. Unstructured decisions are never planned for or predicted. They occur unexpectedly and managers must aptly deal with them. Control and monitoring – this ensures maximum productivity with minimal wastes by applying what works well and discarding those which do not. Hence every process and outcome is evaluated so that points of success and failure are ascertained. This enables a remedial action to be adopted in the event no efficiency is realized. In coordination/liaison, managers are the points of contacts at all levels as well as linking with other functional areas. Information flow needs to be effective for people to receive it in the right time and format. Organizing involves directing the company’s resources in the right procedures. Hence both humans and non-humans collectively put their efforts together to achieve the companies’ goals. The actor network theory enhances management functions by enabling meaningful courses of actions to be taken for the goals to be achieved. This means they ease realistic allocation of resources, both humans and non-humans for the attainment of optimum efficiency in an organization/business/company. Issues and questions arising from the actor network theory According to the proposers of actor network theory, it aims at exploring how networks are assembled/ built and maintained for the achievement of specific objectives (Tatnal, 2014). They assert that identities i.e. networks and actants are established via delegated interactions. These recognize the necessity of inseparable socio-technical factors. On the other hand, the theory is criticized for having no clear sufficient boundary or account where a network lies or can be considered for a definition (Khosrow-Pour, 2009). The critics argue that there is overdependence of the analysts’ story on the description actualizing network as if it is objectively available. Moreover, proposers assert that the theory has the ability to unravel series of actions or influences from varied actors. These are performed so that a specific action and outcome is delivered hence breaking off from the social theory. This is because it is not fixated on any theory but thrives on the uncertainty of human behavior where actions are not predetermined. Actors are therefore assumed to be aware of what they are doing and are connected to numerous other elements. Critics on their side state that giving free voice to things lowers the realist and technical accounts (Khosrow-Pour, 2009). These, they say that technological artifacts are referred to as social relations regarded in their durability and cohesion. Additionally, it is stated in the actor network theory that actants can reconstruct a network through interactions for the system to stabilize. It is also argued that social and technical as well as human and non-human actors are considered inseparable hence similar concepts can be used in studying them (McMaster, 2007). This idea is pegged on the argument that actors in any network are all the present and participating elements in performing the task at hand. This notion is sharply criticized because it reduces human beings to mere objects. This is because there is no instance where human beings can have a common standard with non-living things. Conclusion The actor network theory traces the actor’s action in forming and stabilizing network relationships and these involve both human and non-human entities (Tatnall, 2013). This analysis aids in the understanding of leadership roles in any innovation activity for example developing an e-government. In contemporary computing, parametric design techniques are defined as associative in nature. This association focuses on the variation of objects as well as their assemblage i.e. how they are linked. The actor network theory has a symmetric notion implying that the actors are linked together. However, this is one ground on which the theory has been criticized. This is due to the assumption that social and technical, human and non-human actors are collectively inseparable. This calls for the actors to be studied together yet it reduces humanity to just mere objects. It is therefore true that “contemporary computing can be seen as an assemblage.” This is because it brings various components together for the effectiveness, optimum output and efficiency of a system. References Banks, D., 2011. A Brief Summary of Actor Network Theory. TheSocietyPages.org Cyborgology, [blog] 2 December. Available at: [Accessed 4 July 2015]. Gardner, A., 2002. AS & A Level ICT through Diagrams. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Khosrow-Pour, M., 2009. Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, 2nd Ed. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. Latour, B., 1990. On Actor-Network Theory: A Few Clarifications Plus More Than a Few Complications. [pdf] Paris: Science Studies-San Diego. Available at < http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/P-67%20ACTOR-NETWORK.pdf> [Accessed 4 July 2015]. McMaster, T., 2007. Organizational Dynamics of Technology-Based Innovation: Diversifying the Research Agenda. New York: Springer. Rosenbloom, P. S., 2013. On Computing: The Fourth Great Scientific Domain. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Tatnall, A., 2013. Social and Professional Applications of Actor-Network Theory for Technology Development. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. Tatnall, A., 2014. Technological Advancements and the Impact of Actor-Network Theory. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. Read More