Callon’s early ANT studies discuss the process of how scientists and engineers build their networks to allow technologies and ideas to cohere and circulate. One of the most important studies to take into consideration is that of the fishing community of St Brieuc Bay (Callon 1986). The case study and the “model of translation” presented will be carefully reviewed as it is central to the analysis of this research. In particular, the different phases of translation will help to understand the construction of the actor-network and all the actors involved. Before reviewing his study, it is relevant to highlight Callon’s premise at the beginning of his paper. He argues that social scientists and engineers are actively engaged in changing society and that science and technology cannot be purely defined by sociology and the sociological study of social forces and actors (e.g. power, class). The study starts from scientists and representatives of the fishing community gathered in a conference aiming to increase the production of scallops by farming them. Three researchers discovered a technique to farm the scallops after a journey to Japan which increased the stocks of the crustaceans. Such technique could have been an advantage if implemented because of the dwindling stock of scallops in France due to their intensive exploitation.
Callon (1986) analyses the construction of this network and the production of knowledge through four moments of translation. These are: problematisation in which translators try to define the problem and an “obligatory passage point” needed to solve it;
interessement in which translators draw together actors’ interests in order to follow the
project; enrolment in which the main actors are assigned roles and alliances are built;
mobilisation in which “the actor-network extends beyond the initial group” (Denis et al.
2007). In the problematisation phase, the researchers determine the set of actors by defining their identities and making them an obligatory passage point in the network of relationships. Hence, three actors are identified: the scallops (Pecten Maximus) which are represented as potentially “farmable”, the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay which are interested in restocking the bay with scallops, and the scientific colleagues who agree to the researchers’ project. Therefore, the researchers themselves and their experiment will become an obligatory passage point which the fishermen have to pass through in order to actualise their “translated interests” (Michael 2017). This is discussed in the following steps of the model. Indeed, in the interessement phase the researchers try to stabilise and consolidate the identity of the other actors by building devices to be placed among them
62
(interessement devices). These devices are, for example, the towline and the collectors used to anchor the scallops’ larvae, whereas for the fishermen, the devices are texts and conversations to understand the reasons to follow the researchers’ project. If the role of the interessement devices is successful, then problematisation’s validity is confirmed (Callon 1986).
Nonetheless, the interessement devices do not assure that alliances are built, and actors are enrolled. In order to achieve enrolment of actors, it is necessary to conduct negotiations. As Callon (1986) argues, the scallops can get enrolled, if they are willing to anchor to the collectors. However, the researchers have first to negotiate with the scallops and all the “enemy forces” which can affect the larvae’s anchorage. These enemies include, for example, currents (as an obstacle to anchorage), and parasites, whereas the negotiations with the scallops comprise of the choice of material used for the collectors, as it is observed that some materials can hinder, or slow down the process of anchorage, but there as some cases in which larvae attach themselves. This proof of the anchorage of a limited number of larvae is finally judged as sufficient by the scientific colleagues who thereby are enrolled. The fishermen, on the contrary, do not participate in the negotiations and get enrolled without any resistance.
In the last phase of mobilisation, Callon (1986) argues that the fact that only a limited number of larvae anchor to the collectors means that only a small proportion of scallops represent the whole population and thus the anchorage is taken for sure by the researchers. Regarding the fishermen and the scientific community, only a few representatives did actually go through the process of enrolment. A perfect symmetry is represented: “a series of intermediaries and equivalences are put in place which lead to the designation of the spokesman” (p. 13). In this context, the three researchers have become representative of the scallops, the fishermen, and the scientific community and they must work at keeping these actors’ interests enrolled in the network by publishing and presenting scientific papers at conferences. In this way, the actors are “displaced” and “mobilised” (Callon 1986). In effect, a new actor, a farmed scallop, appears to have been created and can now circulate in France and perhaps beyond.
However, this network, formed by stabilising consensus and alliances, can be contested at any time. In fact, Callon’s (1986) case study shows how that the repeated experiment results in a failure. The number of farmed larvae is not sufficient to decide on
63
the future success of the project. Indeed, the larvae refuse to anchor to the collectors in the following years, meaning that the anchorage at the time of the first experiment was maybe just accidental. The researchers are therefore “betrayed”. The fishermen also failed to follow their roles by fishing the scallops without respecting the commitments agreed by their representatives regarding the long-term sustainability of the scallops’ farming. In this way, the identities of the actors change and also the scientific colleagues become sceptical (Callon 1986; Michael 2017b).
Callon’s (1986) model of translation, as depicted in the scallops’ study, is beneficial to this thesis because it can be used in this research to analyse how the network between the contractor and the supply chain is built, how these actors, both human and non-human (e.g. BIM and other objects implemented within the network) build these relations, and contribute in stabilising and circulating a specific (collaborative) innovation. In effect, aiming towards the implementation of the network builder’s strategy. In particular, the four different phases of the model can be recognised in the process where the actor builder, who may, for example, be a director in a construction contractor firm, creates the premises and the environment to attract external organisations’ interests (e.g. supplier firms) and “enrol” them by providing benefits for both parties. Even though this model would help to describe network building and collaboration, there are some limitations within this line of analysis, particularly regarding the role of technology in influencing the actors’ collaborative activities and interactions. An empirical analysis of the model and its limitations will be offered within the empirical analysis of this study.