[Air-L] Using ANT as ethos and method

[Mark Chen]

Hey all!

Fascinating discussion.

I've recently starting reading about ANT and have been toying with the idea
of analyzing how a raid in WoW works through an ANT lens, though I am unsure
what it'll get me more than using distributed cognition (Hutchins) or just
simply describing the learning arrangement between various humans and
nonhumans to get the job done.

I guess my problem with ANT is that it seems boundless in terms of macro vs.
micro analysis. As has been mentioned, an actor network can be made up of
actor networks. Where does one start?

So, for example, I have a 40 person raid group that learns to kill a boss
over several weeks. It seems like each person should be considered an actor
that had to be translated into the network. We've also collectively used
certain addons and tools within the game to help us manage cognitive load
and to make transparent some of the underworkings of the game. Does each of
these addons get counted? Does each iteration of an addon get counted (40
people running the same addon in slightly different ways, positioned on the
screen differently, paying attention to different parts of the addon, etc.)?
Do specific functions of the addon get separated as individual actors? Do
different elements of the UI get separated? To back up, do specific people
get broken down to mind-body-fingers?

Latour (writing as Johnson) briefly mentions that a door closer, an actor
that's been delegated the task of making a hole back into a wall, can be
further broken down into the mechanisms in the whole object (egs. a spring,
a metal cylinder). Is it completely arbitrary where a researcher draws the
line?

In Reassembling the Social, Latour emphasizes tracing associations, which is
possibly an answer to my above questions. I could concentrate on describing
practice in the raid activity as I see it (which is pretty much what I've
been doing for a while now), but pay particular attention to describing the
functions of specific things as they relate to other things. Do this as they
come up. In turn, these associations lead to other things that come up. Is
that no longer considered ANT but after-ANT?

Is it more useful to describe cognition and memory and material resources
within an entity a la dcog than use ANT? (Though my prob with dcog is more
that it seems like a snapshot-in-time where I am trying to document the
change in practice. ANT seems like it inherently considers instability and
change through the act of translation.) Is ANT reserved for bigger arguments
about societal relationships? About translation being the leveraging or
convincing of other actors to share tasks? Or maybe a dcog analysis is the
way to use an ANT lens using my ethnographic mehod...

Lots of questions. Maybe better suited to a blog post, as I'm just throwing
ideas out there without much experience with ANT and such... But I thought
I'd throw them out since it seems to that me the fastest way to learn
something is to make transparent what you don't know. And my digital ears
perked up when I saw Tamara's first message in this thread. ANT and MMOGs!

thanks,
mark
-- 
Mark Chen | PhD Candidate | Games ethnographer/researcher
Ed Tech/Learning Sciences | University of Washington - Seattle
My games research and life in academia blog: markdangerchen.net