As we saw in the previous chapters, different parts of Telecorp relate in different and complex ways. I've introduced activity networks and actor–networks in thumbnail fashion as two different ways of getting at how these parts relate. Now it's time to roll up our sleeves and see what's actually involved in analyzing such networks. As we've seen, activity theory and actor–network theory have common ground but also disagreements stemming from their very different projects. As I said in Chapter 2, I'm not going to provide a middle way or “just right” solution (that's a tired trope, and nobody really believes it anyway). I'll settle for a dialogue – one that honestly examines the dispute, not the sniping that has until now taken place between the two camps. Let's have a real argument!

And it's high time that this argument take place. Activity theory and actor–network theory have traditionally worked in separate areas. Activity theory is primarily a theory of distributed cognition and focuses on issues of labor, learning, and concept formation; it's used in fields such as educational, cognitive, and cultural psychology, although it's also making inroads in human–computer interaction, computer-supported cooperative work, communication, and anthropology. In contrast, actor–network theory is primarily an ontology – an account of existence – and focuses on issues of power in science and politics: rhetoric, production of facts, agreements, and knowledge. It's used in science and technology studies, philosophy, and sociology.