In this paper, I address two questions: do their dissimilarities prevent action research and actor-network theory from being used together? If not, how can they complement each other? To do so, I discuss literature from each approach, the only two studies I found that combine action research and actor-network theory (both from organization management) and anecdotes from my field-work experience on the participatory management of urban spaces. On one hand, combining action research and actor-network theory helped me deal with the unpredictability of collaborative research projects by (1) helping me adapt to circumstances while remaining aware of my agency and (2) report systematically on diverse interactions while also letting a shared vocabulary and narrative emerge. On the other, my adherence to the principles of each approach and the comparability of my experience were affected by a lack of both time and control over the processes in which I was involved. I hope to support a debate that crosses disciplinary and methodological boundaries about the realities of doing collaborative inquiry, not by seeking normative statements about research practice, but by emphasizing how the latter cannot exist without a complex network of relations that inevitably affect its validity.

在本文中，我要解决两个问题：它们的差异是否会阻止行动研究和参与者网络理论一起使用？如果没有，它们又如何互补？为此，我讨论了每种方法的文献，发现仅有的两项研究将行动研究和行为者网络理论（均来自组织管理）相结合，并结合了我在城市空间参与性管理方面的实地工作经验中的轶事。一方面，将行动研究与行动者网络理论相结合，可以帮助我应对协作研究项目的不可预测性，方法是：（1）帮助我在适应环境的同时保持对我的代理人的了解；（2）系统地报告各种相互作用，同时让出现了共同的词汇和叙述。在另一，我对每种方法的坚持和经验的可比性受到缺乏时间和对我所参与流程的控制的影响。我希望支持一场关于跨学科研究的现实性跨学科和方法论界的辩论，而不是通过寻求有关研究实践的规范性陈述，而是通过强调后者如果没有复杂的关系网络就不可避免地存在，这不可避免地影响其有效性。