Peter Geyer
Type Coaching and Training
| Home | About Peter | The MBTI® | Writing | Services | Contact Peter |
|
Peter Geyer
|
| Home | About Peter | The MBTI® | Writing | Services | Contact Peter |
New Articles
On "Personality"ICISTS Conference KAIST Daejeon Korea 17 July 2008 People and Qualities: The nature and type of participants in an Australian MBTI® Qualifying Workshop
Presentation
On "Personality"C.G.Jung and the MBTI®
Theory & Research
APTi IAC Research and Theory Articles
(Selections)
|
CHAPTER 4 UNDERSTANDING “SCIENCE”.....AND THE ACTOR NETWORK Attempts to establish psychology as a field of scientific enquiry at the turn of the century to a certain extent presupposed an agreed definition of what authentic scientific activity might be. However, a lack of agreement on such a definition threads its way through recent Western history, as Raymond Williams, amongst others, has shown (1983;pp276-280). Consequently, in order to understand and evaluate the development of the MBTI as scientific activity, a broadly conventional view on what science is considered to be will be presented and then compared to the actor-network approach. John Ziman somewhat pithily describes science as “reliable knowledge”, implying consistency, dependability and regularity as benchmarks for defining scientific activity. An orthodox practitioner of science himself, he follows Thomas Merton’s view of the activity of science in that when scientists are performing scientific activities, they aim to subscribe to morally and technically efficient methods that are impersonal and objective and that the results of these methods, scientific knowledge, are open to everyone (1991;pp4-5). It has been argued that as this approach is more espoused than real both as philosophy and in actuality, it is not very helpful in understanding how scienctific activity is actually performed . Fuchs observes that, from the orthodox perspective “modern science is entitled to claim universal validity because in principle, anyone who can think logically, understand the meanings of words, and perceive the world would arrive at the same conclusions”, but that in fact “science reacts to social pressures-just like any other ordinary and mundane system of action.”(1992;p26). Callon, Law & Rip acknowledge that “the notion that science is in some way pure, set aside from daily and profane activities, is deeply entrenched in Western culture”(1986;p7), a view endorsed by Danziger in evaluating American psychology’s view of science (1994;p100). However, they propose alternatively that in fact “science is politics by other means” and that “the behaviour of the scientists [they have] studied conforms in every way to that of the classical picture of the entrepreneur”(1986;p9). They present the theory of the actor-network as a means of explaining and understanding this activity . Actor-network theorists suggest that a useful method of looking at scientific activity is for scientists to be seen as not standing outside their subject matter, as conventional views contend, but to be considered a part of it. They consider that scientific work, like any other, takes place in a world where there is no homogeneous and static orderas well as in a situation of many attempts at ordering, rather than one order as postulated by conventional perspectives. This ordering process is continuous, and one in which there are many, metaphorical, actors (Law,1994;pp101-104). An actor-network, therefore, is an attempt at ordering and here are many actor-networks intersecting and overlapping, each offering a particular type of order Lynch describes the actor-network as treating “relations between scientists, interest groups, and organizations on the same (literary) plane as the `technical’ relations between scientists, equipment and `natural’ phenomena....scientists and engineers succeed in creating resilient constellations of power/knowledge when they manage to enrol and enlist ‘heterogeneous allies’ by using a variety of rhetorical and Machiavellian tactics to stabilize these networks”(1992;p216). Law writes that “actor-network theory...tends to tell stories, stories that have to do with the processes of ordering that generate effects such as technologies, stories about how actor-networks elaborate themselves, and stories which erode the analytical status of the distinction between the macro and micro-social” (1994;pp100-102). Actors in this process can be either human or non-human . Any particular network of actors expands or increases its influence by effective translation of its ideas and artifacts to enrol allies, or other actors, in the network (Bijker and Law,1992;p25:Callon,1992;p135). If actors wish to extend their networks beyond what is physically immediate, then the means has to be found to act at a distance, or to mobilise the process. This mobility can be achieved through a number of translations, or interactions, through using “immutable mobiles” and “inscriptions” . Bruno Latour describes an actor as ”any entity able to associate texts , humans, non-humans and money “(1986;p140).He goes on to state that ”when an actor simply has power nothing happens and s/he is powerless; when, on the other hand, an actor exerts power it is others who perform the action” (1986;p264). This means that actors influence or enrol other actors in their network, and are influenced in turn. It also means that people and things pick up an idea, technique or process as they see it,which is not necessarily the same as that originally intended. Of course, the idea, technique or process may be rejected; actors do not have to be successful. Enrolling other actors can be seen simply as an act of negotiation through which one actor becomes indispensable to another as part of an alliance. Completely successful network enrolment then, involves interressment, an entanglement of sorts whereby all in the network will speak as if with one voice. A successful enrolment or translation therefore does not depend on any initial impetus, but rather on what each person involved in the network does with the idea or artifact, for they have a choice as to what they will do. Interessement means that their chosen uses have become close to identical. Immutable mobiles and inscription devices are the means by which actors enrol other allies. They are objects that are transportable while remaining the same. This means they can be used in a number of localities with the same result. Scientific instruments, books, televisions, are all examples of these. In Latour and Woolgar’s words ”an inscription device is any item of apparatus or particular configuration of such items which can transform a material substance into a figure or a diagram which is directly usable by one of the members of the office space”(1986;p51). O’Connell, in his paper on metrication, asserts that “to have collective-producing value, research must collect data at various locations using standardized procedures and instruments that are of known calibration - that is to say, that which circulates among them must be immutable, to use Latour’s terms” (1993;p134). The most effective enrolments or translations occur when an idea or an artifact becomes a black box. This term, borrowed from cybernetics, means that there is general agreement about what the idea or artifact comprises or contains and so what it comprises or contains is not challenged or questioned. The notion that you can quantify the psyche is a black box for the use and application of psychological instruments, for instance. People who set out to construct psychological instruments (an immutable mobile) generally accept this proposition, whereas others may be less accepting . Querying or examining this proposition qualifies and limits an instrument’s use and application. Opening such a black box to see what it contains is a rare event and discouraged by proponents of this idea or technique which it contains. “The more other scientists use a statement as the premises on which to build their own statements, the more they turn that statement into an unproblematic black box and an unquestioned foundation for subsequent scientific work” (Fuchs,1992;pp48-49). For Callon and Latour, “an actor grows with the number of relations he or she can put...in black boxes. A black box therefore contains that which no longer needs to be reconsidered. The more elements one can place in black boxes - modes of thoughts, habits, forces and objects – the broader the construction one can raise. Of course, black boxes never remain fully closed or properly fastened” (1981;pp284-285). Fuchs suggests that it is scientists who define what is acceptable and what will become a black box, largely through collegiate control and that membership of such a collegiate involves the assessment and attainment of appropriate qualifications . It follows from this that other examples of actor networks include professional groups such as doctors and lawyers and psychologists, where one outcome is to regulate specific activities and state that only certain, “qualified” people can perform these activities. The development of the profession of electrical engineers has been documented in this way (Marvin;1988) and the current status of lawyers, medical doctors, psychiatrists and psychologists for instance can be put down to successful networks and strong black boxes when they are evaluated using this framework of interpretation. Finally, challenging, or disagreeing with a well-established network is difficult. Latour points out that “the dissenter will have to do the same thing as his opponent. In order to `doubt back’, so to speak, he will have to write another book, have it printed, and mobilize with copper plates the counterexamples he wants to oppose. The cost of disagreeing will increase” (1986;p13). The dissenter in this case has to operate according to the rules of the network he opposes in order to effectively communicate his opposition. Unless, of course, he (or she) chooses to establish an alternative network. This particular problem identified by Latour will be seen to be relevant to the analysis of the origin and development of the MBTI utilising actor-network theory in Chapter 5. |