As we already discussed, he is putting forward a new idea for analysis of computation called actor-network theory. The core of the article is why there is a need to have conceptual tools to understand computation, by discrediting the conventional technicist interpretation.
i. The author starts his ideas through a preliminary step of critiquing computer revolution, as an academician, he distances himself from the common sense hype given to computation as the only causal factor for social and economic change, on the other hand , he argues that it is the change in social and economic processes impacts upon technology.
ii. The alternative theoretical paradigm proposed by the author gives an account of how new technology aka computation have a correlation with gender, race, political economy and skills rather than focusing on the nature of work. The overall understanding of these factors, either their stability or change gives a complete picture of change of the nature of work particularly and the society in general iii. It is not the proposition of technology that must change, the society that a paradigm shift happens. It is the actor's need that defines such a situation and what technology should be implemented under sociocultural straining factors. The author further explains this as "Who cares whether computers are really changing society? The fact that employers think this is true means that they are more open to thinking about the way those information systems can affect organizational culture, which means more opportunities, like participatory design, for us anthropologists to have an impact"
