Summary of literature review
| Study | Over-riding view of the role of theory | Employed mode of reasoning | Strategies for developing research questions | Nature of research contributions | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| “Classic ANT” | Normal science | “Classic ANT” | Normal science | “Classic ANT” | Normal science | “Classic ANT” | Normal science | |
| Christensen and Skærbæk (2007) | No | Yes – both on input and output side especially in relation to domain theory (applying new method theory to extant domain theory) | Methodology relatively faithful to ANT | Possibly elements of all three normal science modes of reasoning. Particular emphasis on inductive, comparative generalization | No | Gap-spotting and problematization in relation to domain theory | No | Mainly illustration of method theory Perhaps some extension of domain theory |
| MacKenzie (2009) | No | No clear theory development on either input or output side | Methodology faithful to ANT | None of the normal science modes of reasoning applied | Yes | None of the normal science strategies applied | Yes | None of the normal science modes applied Contributions rather of a practical/policy nature |
| Millo and MacKenzie (2009) | No | Yes – on the input side in relation to both domain theory and method theory. On the output side more in relation to domain theory | Methodology relatively faithful to ANT (although methodology discussion is limited) | Mainly deductive but with some elements of abduction towards the end | No | Problematization in relation to domain theory Problematization of method theory later in the paper | No | Illustration and extension of method theory Extension of domain theory |
| Roberts and Jones (2009) | No | No clear theory development on either input or output side | Methodology relatively faithful to ANT but with some conceptual elements borrowed from other method theories | Limited use (if any) of the normal science modes of reasoning | Yes | Possibly an element of mystery construction (although theoretical significance of puzzle less clear) | Yes | None of the normal science modes applied Contributions rather of a practical/policy nature |
| Skærbæk (2009) | No | Yes – both on input and output side especially in relation to domain theory (applying new method theory to extant domain theory) | Methodology is faithful to and explicitly anchored in ANT | Somewhat unclear but there seems to be an element of abduction (analytical generalization) | Not explicitly, although the methodology discussion may suggest otherwise | Gap-spotting in relation to domain theory | No | Extension and refinement of domain theory |
| Skærbæk and Tryggestad (2010) | No | Yes – both on input and output side especially in relation to domain theory (applying new method theory to extant domain theory) | Methodology is faithful to and explicitly anchored in ANT | Largely deductive but with some indications of abduction | No | Problematization in relation to domain theory | No | Extension and refinement of domain theory |
| Kastberg (2014) | No | Yes –on input and (less so) on output side especially in relation to domain theory (applying new method theory to extant domain theory) | Methodology is faithful to ANT (although methodology discussion is limited) | There seems to be a (limited) element of abduction (analytical generalization) although the paper reads like a straightforward illustration of method theory | No | Gap-spotting in relation to domain theory | No | Mainly illustration of method theory, but some attempt to advance more generalizable insights |
| Vinnari and Skærbæk (2014) | No | Yes –on input side in relation to domain theory (applying new method theory to extant domain theory) and on the output side both in relation to domain theory and method theory | Methodology is faithful to and explicitly anchored in ANT | There seems to be an element of abduction through analytical generalization | No | Gap-spotting in relation to domain theory | No | Extension of domain theory and method theory |
| Revellino and Mouritsen (2015) | No | Yes – both on input and output side especially in relation to domain theory (applying new method theory to extant domain theory) | Methodology is faithful to ANT | Both induction (explicitly) and abduction (implicitly through analytical generalizations) applied | Yes | None of the normal science strategies applied (although some implicit problematization in relation to domain theory) | No (but somewhat ambiguous) | Refinement of domain theory and perhaps extension of method theory (including call for more research on failed performativity) |
| Ferreira (2017) | No | Yes –on input side as well as output side in relation to domain theory as well as method theory | Methodology relatively faithful to but not explicitly anchored in ANT | Both induction (explicitly) and abduction (implicitly through analytical generalizations) applied | Yes | Some problematization in relation to domain theory. Clear problematization of method theory through discussion of failed performativity | No | Extension of method theory through extensive discussion of why performativity fails and calls for further research on this topic |
| Georg and Justesen (2017) | No | Yes – both on input and output side especially in relation to domain theory (applying new method theory to extant domain theory) | Methodology is faithful to and explicitly anchored in ANT | None of the normal science modes of reasoning applied | No | Gap-spotting and (limited) problematization in relation to domain theory | No | Illustration of method theory and some extension of domain theory |
| Cuckston (2018) | No | Yes – both on input and output side especially in relation to domain theory (applying new method theory to extant domain theory) | Methodology relatively faithful to ANT (but no explicit methodology discussion) | Somewhat unclear, but there seems to be an implicit element of abduction | Yes | Some gap-spotting in relation to domain theory | No | Extension of domain theory |
| Jollands et al. (2018) | No | Yes – both on input and output side especially in relation to domain theory (applying new method theory to extant domain theory) | Methodology is faithful to ANT | There seems to be an element of abduction (analytical generalization) and induction (comparative theory building from empirics) | Yes | Gap-spotting in relation to domain theory | No | Extension of domain theory Illustration of method theory (but this is not main contribution) |
| Themsen and Skærbæk (2018) | No | Yes – both on input and output side especially in relation to domain theory (applying new method theory to extant domain theory) Some attempts to contribute to method theory on output side | Methodology is faithful to and explicitly anchored in ANT | None of the normal science modes of reasoning explicitly applied (but still implicit element of abduction through analytical generalization) | No | Gap-spotting in relation to domain theory | No | Illustration and extension of domain theory Some extension of method theory |
| Warren and Seal (2018) | No | Yes –on input side both in relation to domain theory and method theory. Less clear on output side | Methodology shows element of ANT reasoning but is not explicitly anchored in ANT | There seems to be an element of abduction as well as deduction | Yes | Problematization of domain theory | Yes, partly, since much of the theorization is given in the early parts of the paper | Extension of method theory to critical performativity Failed performativity discussed as opportunity for further research |
| Cuckston (2019) | No | Yes – especially on input side in relation to domain theory. Less clear on output side but some critical ambitions in this regard | No | Abduction through analytical generalization | Yes | Problematization of domain theory | No | Extension of domain theory |
| Kastberg and Lagström (2019) | No | Yes – on input side in relation to domain theory Less clear on output side | Methodology faithful to and explicitly anchored in ANT | Primarily abduction | No | Problematization of domain theory | No | Extension and refinement of domain theory |
| Lassila et al. (2019) | No | Yes – on input and output side in relation to domain theory | Methodology somewhat faithful to ANT in the sense that the empirics are rich | Less clear but perhaps an element of abduction | No | Less clear but perhaps an element of gap-spotting in relation to domain theory | No | Illustration of method theory Extension of domain theory |
| Boedker et al. (2020) | No | Yes, on input and output side in relation to domain theory and method theory | Methodology faithful to ANT | Deduction and an element of abduction | No | Problematization and gap-spotting in relation to domain theory and method theory | No | Extension of domain theory and method theory |
| Pucci and Skaerbaek (2020) | No | Yes, on input and output side in relation to domain theory | Methodology faithful and explicitly anchored in ANT | Abduction through analytical generalization, and an element of induction | No | Problematization and gap-spotting in relation to domain theory and method theory | No | Extension and refinement of domain theory and illustration of method theory |
| McLaren and Appleyard (2020) | No | Yes, on output side in relation to domain theory. Less clear on input side | Methodology somewhat faithful to ANT in the sense that the empirics are rich | Abduction through analytical generalization, and an element of induction | Yes | None of the normal science strategies applied | No | Extension of method theory |
| Study | Over-riding view of the role of theory | Employed mode of reasoning | Strategies for developing research questions | Nature of research contributions | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| “Classic ANT” | Normal science | “Classic ANT” | Normal science | “Classic ANT” | Normal science | “Classic ANT” | Normal science | |
| No | Yes – both on input and output side especially in relation to domain theory (applying new method theory to extant domain theory) | Methodology relatively faithful to ANT | Possibly elements of all three normal science modes of reasoning. Particular emphasis on inductive, comparative generalization | No | Gap-spotting and problematization in relation to domain theory | No | Mainly illustration of method theory | |
| No | No clear theory development on either input or output side | Methodology faithful to ANT | None of the normal science modes of reasoning applied | Yes | None of the normal science strategies applied | Yes | None of the normal science modes applied Contributions rather of a practical/policy nature | |
| No | Yes – on the input side in relation to both domain theory and method theory. On the output side more in relation to domain theory | Methodology relatively faithful to ANT (although methodology discussion is limited) | Mainly deductive but with some elements of abduction towards the end | No | Problematization in relation to domain theory | No | Illustration and extension of method theory | |
| No | No clear theory development on either input or output side | Methodology relatively faithful to ANT but with some conceptual elements borrowed from other method theories | Limited use (if any) of the normal science modes of reasoning | Yes | Possibly an element of mystery construction (although theoretical significance of puzzle less clear) | Yes | None of the normal science modes applied Contributions rather of a practical/policy nature | |
| No | Yes – both on input and output side especially in relation to domain theory (applying new method theory to extant domain theory) | Methodology is faithful to and explicitly anchored in ANT | Somewhat unclear but there seems to be an element of abduction (analytical generalization) | Not explicitly, although the methodology discussion may suggest otherwise | Gap-spotting in relation to domain theory | No | Extension and refinement of domain theory | |
| No | Yes – both on input and output side especially in relation to domain theory (applying new method theory to extant domain theory) | Methodology is faithful to and explicitly anchored in ANT | Largely deductive but with some indications of abduction | No | Problematization in relation to domain theory | No | Extension and refinement of domain theory | |
| No | Yes –on input and (less so) on output side especially in relation to domain theory (applying new method theory to extant domain theory) | Methodology is faithful to ANT (although methodology discussion is limited) | There seems to be a (limited) element of abduction (analytical generalization) although the paper reads like a straightforward illustration of method theory | No | Gap-spotting in relation to domain theory | No | Mainly illustration of method theory, but some attempt to advance more generalizable insights | |
| No | Yes –on input side in relation to domain theory (applying new method theory to extant domain theory) and on the output side both in relation to domain theory and method theory | Methodology is faithful to and explicitly anchored in ANT | There seems to be an element of abduction through analytical generalization | No | Gap-spotting in relation to domain theory | No | Extension of domain theory and method theory | |
| No | Yes – both on input and output side especially in relation to domain theory (applying new method theory to extant domain theory) | Methodology is faithful to ANT | Both induction (explicitly) and abduction (implicitly through analytical generalizations) applied | Yes | None of the normal science strategies applied (although some implicit problematization in relation to domain theory) | No (but somewhat ambiguous) | Refinement of domain theory and perhaps extension of method theory (including call for more research on failed performativity) | |
| No | Yes –on input side as well as output side in relation to domain theory as well as method theory | Methodology relatively faithful to but not explicitly anchored in ANT | Both induction (explicitly) and abduction (implicitly through analytical generalizations) applied | Yes | Some problematization in relation to domain theory. Clear problematization of method theory through discussion of failed performativity | No | Extension of method theory through extensive discussion of why performativity fails and calls for further research on this topic | |
| No | Yes – both on input and output side especially in relation to domain theory (applying new method theory to extant domain theory) | Methodology is faithful to and explicitly anchored in ANT | None of the normal science modes of reasoning applied | No | Gap-spotting and (limited) problematization in relation to domain theory | No | Illustration of method theory and some extension of domain theory | |
| No | Yes – both on input and output side especially in relation to domain theory (applying new method theory to extant domain theory) | Methodology relatively faithful to ANT (but no explicit methodology discussion) | Somewhat unclear, but there seems to be an implicit element of abduction | Yes | Some gap-spotting in relation to domain theory | No | Extension of domain theory | |
| No | Yes – both on input and output side especially in relation to domain theory (applying new method theory to extant domain theory) | Methodology is faithful to ANT | There seems to be an element of abduction (analytical generalization) and induction (comparative theory building from empirics) | Yes | Gap-spotting in relation to domain theory | No | Extension of domain theory | |
| No | Yes – both on input and output side especially in relation to domain theory (applying new method theory to extant domain theory) | Methodology is faithful to and explicitly anchored in ANT | None of the normal science modes of reasoning explicitly applied (but still implicit element of abduction through analytical generalization) | No | Gap-spotting in relation to domain theory | No | Illustration and extension of domain theory | |
| No | Yes –on input side both in relation to domain theory and method theory. Less clear on output side | Methodology shows element of ANT reasoning but is not explicitly anchored in ANT | There seems to be an element of abduction as well as deduction | Yes | Problematization of domain theory | Yes, partly, since much of the theorization is given in the early parts of the paper | Extension of method theory to critical performativity | |
| No | Yes – especially on input side in relation to domain theory. Less clear on output side but some critical ambitions in this regard | No | Abduction through analytical generalization | Yes | Problematization of domain theory | No | Extension of domain theory | |
| No | Yes – on input side in relation to domain theory Less clear on output side | Methodology faithful to and explicitly anchored in ANT | Primarily abduction | No | Problematization of domain theory | No | Extension and refinement of domain theory | |
| No | Yes – on input and output side in relation to domain theory | Methodology somewhat faithful to ANT in the sense that the empirics are rich | Less clear but perhaps an element of abduction | No | Less clear but perhaps an element of gap-spotting in relation to domain theory | No | Illustration of method theory | |
| No | Yes, on input and output side in relation to domain theory and method theory | Methodology faithful to ANT | Deduction and an element of abduction | No | Problematization and gap-spotting in relation to domain theory and method theory | No | Extension of domain theory and method theory | |
| No | Yes, on input and output side in relation to domain theory | Methodology faithful and explicitly anchored in ANT | Abduction through analytical generalization, and an element of induction | No | Problematization and gap-spotting in relation to domain theory and method theory | No | Extension and refinement of domain theory and illustration of method theory | |
| No | Yes, on output side in relation to domain theory. Less clear on input side | Methodology somewhat faithful to ANT in the sense that the empirics are rich | Abduction through analytical generalization, and an element of induction | Yes | None of the normal science strategies applied | No | Extension of method theory | |
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.