ANT as a mapping methodology

As can also be gleaned from the abstract this article explores the value of ANT as a methodology in the realm of Human Geography research. I came across the article as I was searching for papers that engaged more specifcally with the practical aspects of 'doing' ANT. My research focuses on the use of GIS technology in peacebuilding operations and I was looking for an approach that would allow me to engage as much with the role of the technology as with the peacebuilding agents. Since GIS is a tool for mapping I have always been interested in the concept. As I was reading about ANT and writing up some methodological thoughts, it became more and more apparent that my project was mapping a mapping process, i.e. mapping how GIS maps post-conflict environments in peacebuilding missions. In this way, ANT became an extremely useful tool to think about the research field as a map, and how to go about the mapping process as a research strategy.

Ruming comes for a Human Geography backgrounds and is interested in planning issues in Australia. However, the case studies addressed in the paper have great value as he focuses on particularly on questions of the researcher's positionality, identity and reflexivity in the process of doing research, how to enrol actors for interviews - where to begin - issues of representation, interrelatedness, and scope. The main argument is that the researcher is part of - or in ANT terms an actor within - the fieldwork context - or in ANT terms the constructed network. Indeed, having read the article I would argue that doing research is a mapping process. the researcher enters a research field that he/she has previously constructed or defined; however, through his/her entrance and interaction with the network, i.e. by interviewing/talking to actors and enrolling new actors, he/she also shapes and transforms the network. The mapping therefore occurs not from an outside perspective but rather from a position within the network which needs to be accounted for. When Ruming talks about scope it seemed to me rather evident that ANT is a mapping process. Questions of scope are always an issue - how far do I go, or how much do I map? In order to adress this dilemma he introduces the concept of the "topological networked reading" (note the mapping terminology) which argues that from within the network the researcher follows leads to 'the outside' in order to account for or simply glimpse its interrelatedness to other networks on other levels rather than representing an artificially isolated field.

Again, I found this article instructive in answering practical questions of how to mobilize ANT but it also made my project re-appear as a mapping process itself. I am interested to see what others think about the article and its applicability in terms of researching security. Particularly, the issue of the researcher's position is rather interesting - from where or what vantage point to we map? And also, how do we deal with questions of representation if we are coming from an anti-foundationalist perspective?

I am looking forward to your thoughts - enjoy the read!