Teoria ator-rede para as ciências da segurança: Reagregando elementos sociais e técnicos
Barra lateral de artigos
Conteúdo do artigo principal
Resumo
Estudos recentes sugerem desafios para o desenvolvimento da ciência da segurança, quais sejam alargamento de perspectivase metodologias para a compreensão do trabalho sociotécnico, incentivo para que os efeitos da complexidade sejam analisados com maior profundidade e para que pesquisas em segurança sejam politicamente orientadas em seus modelos. Este estudo
explora contribuições da Teoria Ator-Rede como recurso metodológico para reagrupar elementos humanos e não humanos nas pesquisas em ciência da segurança, especialmente quando consideramos a realidade dinâmica, a variabilidade e a incerteza que caracterizam sistemas sociotécnicos complexos. À luz dos elementos teóricos da Teoria Ator-Rede, tais como controvérsias, ontologias políticas, enactment, discutimos possibilidades para cartografia de controvérsias em estudos em ciência da segurança. A discussão contribui, então, com novas conexões metodológicas para pesquisas em ciência da segurança, que explorem associações e reposicionamentos entre as diferentes realidades que compõem o campo.
Downloads
Métricas
Detalhes do artigo
A RAE compromete-se a contribuir com a proteção dos direitos intelectuais do autor. Nesse sentido:
- adota a licença Creative Commoms BY (CC-BY) em todos os textos que publica, exceto quando houver indicação de específicos detentores dos direitos autorais e patrimoniais;
- adota software de detecção de similaridades;
- adota ações de combate ao plagio e má conduta ética, alinhada às diretrizes do Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
Referências
Álvarez-Santos, J., Miguel-Dávila, J. Á., Herrera, L., & Nieto, M. (2018). Safety management system in TQM environments. Safety Science, 101, 135-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.08.019
Amalberti, R. (2001). The paradoxes of almost totally safe transportation systems. Safety Science, 37(2-3), 109-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00045-X
Amalberti, R. (2013). The Demand for Safety and Its Paradoxes. In Navigating safety: Necessary compromises and trade-offs - theory and practice (1st ed., pp. 1–18). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6549-8_1
Amalberti, R, Auroy, Y., Berwick, D., & Barach, P. (2005). Five system barriers to achieving ultrasafe health care. Annals of Internal Medicine, 142(9), 756-764. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-7964(08)70407-5
Amir, S., & Kant, V. (2018). Sociotechnical resilience: A preliminary concept. Risk Analysis, 38(1), 8-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.08.019
Bergström, J., & Dekker, S. (2019). The 2010s and onward: Resilience engineering. In Foundations of Safety Science (pp. 391-429). Routledge.
Bussular, C. Z., Burtet, C. G., & Antonello, C. S. (2019). The actor-network theory as a method in the analysis of Samarco disaster in Brazil. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 15(2), 176-191. https://doi.org/10.1108/QROM-04-2017-1520
Callon, M. (1986). The sociology of an actor-network: The case of the electric vehicle. In Mapping the dynamics of science and technology (pp. 19-34). Palgrave Macmillan.
Callon, M. (2008). Entrevista com Michel Callon: dos estudos de laboratório aos estudos de coletivos heterogêneos, passando pelos gerenciamentos econômicos. Sociologias, 302-321 https://doi.org/10.1590/S1517-45222008000100013
Camillis, P. K. D., & Antonello, C. S. (2016, Janeiro/Março). Da translação para o enactar: Contribuições da Teoria Ator-Rede para a abordagem processual das organizações. Cadernos EBAPE.BR, 14(1), 61-82. https://doi.org/10.1590/1679-395131412
Camillis, P. K. D., Bussular, C. Z., & Antonello, C. S. (2016). A agência a partir da Teoria Ator-Rede: Reflexões e contribuições para as pesquisas em administração. Organizações & Sociedade, 23(76), 73-91. https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-9230764
Cooper, R. (1976). The open field. Human relations, 29(11), 999-1017. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872677602901101
Cooper, R. G. (1992). The NewProd system: The industry experience. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 9(2), 113-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/0737-6782(92)90003-U
Cooper, R. (2007). Organs of process: Rethinking human organization. Organization Studies, 28(10), https://doi.org/1547-1573. 10.1177/0170840607076587
Corcuff, P. (1995). Quand le terrain prend la parole... Éléments de sociologie réflexive. L'homme et la société, 115(1), 61-73. Recuperado de https://www.persee.fr/doc/homso_0018-4306_1995_num_115_1_3756
Czarniawska, B., & Hernes, T. (2020). Actor-network theory and organizing. Studentlitteratur.
Czarniawska, B. (2013). Organizations as obstacles to organizing. In Organization and organizing (pp. 27-46). Routledge.
Dekker, S., Cilliers, P., & Hofmeyr, J. H. (2011). The complexity of failure: Implications of complexity theory for safety investigations. Safety science, 49(6), 939-945.
https:// https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2014.07.015
Dekker, S. (2014a). Safety differently: Human factors for a new era. CRC Press.
Dekker, S. (2014b). The bureaucratization of safety. Safety Science, 70, 348-357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2014.07.015
Dekker, S. (2018). The safety anarchist. Routledge.
Dekker, S. (2019). Foundations of safety science: A century of understanding accidents and disasters. CRC Press.
Dekker, S. (2021). Compliance Capitalism: How Free Markets Have Led to Unfree, Overregulated Workers. Routledge.
Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Academy of management review, 35(2), 202-225. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.35.2.zok202
Grote, G. (2012). Safety management in different high-risk domains: All the same? Safety Science, 50(10), 1983-1992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.07.017
Haavik, T. K. (2014). On the ontology of safety. Safety Science, 67, 37-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.09.004
Haavik, T. K. (2021, February). Debates and politics in safety science. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 210, 107547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2021.107547
Hale, A., & Borys, D. (2013a). Working to rule, or working safely? Part 1: A state of the art review. Safety Science, 55, 207-221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2012.05.011
Hale, A., & Borys, D. (2013b). Working to rule or working safely? Part 2: The management of safety rules and procedures. Safety Science, 55, 222-231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2012.05.013
Hollnagel, E., Pariès, J., Woods, D. D. D., & Wreathall, J. J. (2011). Resilience engineering in practice. In Ashgate Studies in Resilence Engineering. (1st ed.). Ashgate.
Hollnagel, E., & Woods, D. D. (1983). Cognitive systems engineering: New wine in new bottles. International Journal of Man-machine Studies, 18(6), 583-600. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7373(83)80034-0
Hopkins, A. (2012). Disastrous decisions. CCH.
Hopkins, A., & Maslen, S. (2015). Risky rewards: How company bonuses affect safety. Ashgate Publishing Company.
Hussenot, A. (2014). Analyzing organization through disagreements: The concept of managerial controversy. Journal of Organizational Change Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-01-2012-0006
LaPorte, T. R., & Consolini, P. M. (1991). Working in practice but not in theory: theoretical challenges of" high-reliability organizations". Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 1(1), 19-48. Recuperado de https://polisci.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/people/u3825/LaPorte-WorkinginPracticebutNotinTheory.pdf
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. (1st ed.). Princeton University Press.
Latour, B. (1997). Trains of thoughts-Piaget, Formalism and the Fifth Dimension. Common Knowledge, 6(3), 170-191.
Latour, B. (2000). Ciência em ação: Como seguir cientistas e engenheiros sociedade afora. Unesp.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press.
Law, J. (1999). After ANT: Complexity, naming and topology. The Sociological Review, 47(S1), 1-14.
Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. Psychology Press.
Law, J. (2009). Actor network theory and material semiotics. The new Blackwell companion to social theory, 3, 141-158.
Law, J. (2009). Actor network theory and material semiotics. In B. S. Turner (Ed.), The new Blackwell companion to social theory (pp. 141–158). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Law, J., & Urry, J. (2004). Enacting the social. Economy and Society, 33(3), 390-410.
Le Coze, J. C. (2012). Towards a constructivist program in safety. Safety science, 50(9), 1873-1887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2012.03.019
Le Coze, J. C. (2013). New models for new times. An anti-dualist move. Safety science, 59, 200-218.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2012.07.007
Le Coze, J. C. (2014). The foundations of safety science. Safety Science, 67, 1-5.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2014.03.002
Le Coze, J. C., & Pettersen, K. (2008, October). Is resilience engineering realist or constructivist?. In 3. Resilience Engineering Symposium (pp. 175-184). École des Mines de Paris. Paris.
Lee, N., & Brown, S. (1994). Otherness and the actor network: the undiscovered continent. American Behavioral Scientist, 37(6), 772-790. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764294037006005
Leveson, N. G. (2003, August). A new approach to hazard analysis for complex systems. In International Conference of the System Safety Society. Ottawa, Ontario, Canadá.
Masys, A. J. (2012). The emergent nature of risk as a product of ‘heterogeneous engineering’: A relational analysis of oil and gas industry safety culture. In Innovative thinking in risk, crisis, and disaster management (pp. 59-85) (1 st ed.). Gower Publishing Limited.
Mol, A. (1999). Ontological politics: A word and some questions. The Sociological Review, 47(1_suppl), 74-89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1999.tb03483.x
Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple: Ontological medical practice. Duke University Press.
Moraes, R. L., Andion, C., & Pinho, J. L. (2017). Cartografia das controvérsias na arena pública da corrupção eleitoral no Brasil. Cadernos EBAPE. BR, 15(4), 846-876. https://doi.org/10.1590/1679-395154831
Perrow, C. (1984). Normal accidents: Living with high risk systems. Princeton Univeristy Press.
Rasmussen, J. (1997). Risk management in a dynamic society: A modelling problem. Safety Science, 27(2-3), 183-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(97)00052-0
Reason, J. (1990). Human error. Cambridge University Press.
Rescher, N. (1996). Process metaphysics: An introduction to process philosophy. Suny Press.
Righi, A. W., Saurin, T. A., & Wachs, P. (2015). A systematic literature review of resilience engineering: Research areas and a research agenda proposal. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 141, 142-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2015.03.007
Tureta, C., Américo, B., & Clegg, S. (2021). Controvérsias como método para ANTi-história. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 61. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-759020210105
Turner, B. A., & Pidgeon, N. F. (1997). Man-made disasters. Butterworth-Heinemann.
Vaughan, D. (1996). The Challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. University of Chicago Press.
Venturini, T. (2010). Diving in magma: How to explore controversies with actor-network theory. Public Understanding of Science, 19(3), 258-273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662509102694
Walker, J. S. (2004). Three Mile Island: A nuclear crisis in historical perspective (Vol. 41). Univ. of California Press.
Walsham, G. (1997). Actor-network theory and IS research: current status and future prospects. Information systems and qualitative research, 466-480. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35309-8_23
Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007). Managing the unexpected: Resilient performance in an age of uncertainty. Jossey-Bass.
Woods, D. D., & Hollnagel, E. (2006). Joint cognitive systems: Patterns in cognitive systems engineering. CRC Press.
Woods, D. D. (2018). The theory of graceful extensibility: Basic rules that govern adaptive systems. Environment Systems and Decisions, 38(4), 433-457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-018-9708
