Prototyping Social Sciences: Emplacing Digital Methods

  • Adolfo Estalella
Chapter

Abstract

Research methods in the social sciences has a history of intense development during the twentieth century. The historical accounts that describe the invention of interview methods, survey techniques, and modern ethnography have demonstrated that social researchers and scholars have exerted great effort in aid of their development. In the twenty-first century, the conditions for the invention of new research methods have been radically transformed with the extension of digital technologies. Many blogs and websites display tag clouds, a technology based upon textual analysis techniques; no less widely spread are the technologies for visualizing hyperlink patterns that draw on the technique of social network analysis. These are but two examples of technologies developed by non-scholars that are based on the application of social science research methods. Noortje Marres (2012) has described this process with the notion of redistribution of methods, highlighting the fact that research methods are now used and even produced anew by people with no formal credentials in the social sciences.

Keywords

Social Network Analysis Digital Technology Free Software Urban Farmer Material Engagement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Adkins, L. and Lury, C. (2009) ‘Introduction: What is the empirical?’, European Journal of Social Theory, 12(1), 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Back, L. (2012) ‘Live sociology: Social research and its futures’, The Sociological Review, 60(S1), 18–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Calvillo, N. (2010) ‘Infra(proto)types’. Paper presented at the Prototyping Cultures: Social Experimentation, Do-It-Yourself Science and Beta-Knowledge, Madrid, Spain, 4–5 November 2010.Google Scholar
  4. Coleman, G. (2013) Coding Freedom. The Ethics and Aesthetics of Hacking. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Corsín Jiménez, A. (2014) ‘The prototype: More than many and less than one’, Journal of Cultural Economy, 7(4), 381–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dias, H. (2010) ‘Re:farm the city. Connecting food to people’, Paper presented at The Prototyping Cultures: Social Experimentation, Do-It-Yourself Science and Beta-Knowledge, Madrid, Spain, 4–5 November 2010.Google Scholar
  7. Galison, P. and Thompson, E. (1999) The Architecture of Science. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Hine, C. (2007) ‘Connective ethnography for the exploration of e-science’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2), 618–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Igo, S.E. (2007) The Averaged American: Surveys, Citizens and the Making of a Mass Public. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jasanoff, S. (2004) States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kelty, C. (2008) Two Bits. The Cultural Significance of Free Software. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Konrad, M. (ed.) (2012) Collaborators Collaborating. Counterparts in Anthropological Knowledge and International Research Relations. New York and Oxford: Berghahn.Google Scholar
  13. Kostakis, V., Niaros, V. and Giotitsas, C. (2014) ‘Production and governance in hackerspaces: A manifestation of commons based peer production in the physical realm?’, International Journal of Cultural Studies, first published on 13 February 2014 doi:10.1177/1367877913519310.Google Scholar
  14. Law, J. (2004) After Method. Mess in Social Science Research. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Law, J. and Hetherington, K. (2000) ‘Materialities, spatialities, globalities’, in J. Bryson, P. Daniels, N. Henry and J. Pollard (eds.) Knowledge, Space, Economy. London: Routledge, pp.34–49.Google Scholar
  16. Law, J., and Ruppert, E. (2013) ‘The social life of methods: Devices’, Journal of Cultural Economy, 6(3), 229–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Leach, J., Nafus, D., and Krieger, B. (2009) ‘Freedom imagined: Morality and aesthetics in open source software design’, Ethnos, 74(1), 51–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lury C. and Wakeford, N. (eds.) (2012a) Inventive Methods. The Happening of the Social. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Lury, C. and Wakeford, N. (2012b) ‘Introduction: A perpetual inventory’, in C. Lury and N. Wakeford (eds.) Inventive Methods. The Happening of the Social. Oxon: Routledge, pp.1–24.Google Scholar
  20. Marres, N. (2009) ‘Testing powers of engagement. Green living experiments, the ontological turn and the undoability of involvement’, European Journal of Social Theory, 12(1), 117–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marres, N. (2012) ‘The redistribution of methods: On intervention in digital social research, broadly conceived’, The Sociological Review, 60(S1), 139–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Massey, D. (1994) Space, Place and Gender. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  23. Medialab-Prado (2010). Interactivos?’10: Neighborhood Science Workshop, http://medialab-prado.es/article/taller-seminario_interactivos10_ciencia_de_barrio, date accessed 4 February 2015.Google Scholar
  24. Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. (2001) Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Oxford: Polity.Google Scholar
  25. Ratto, M. (2011) ‘Critical making: Conceptual and material studies in technology and social life’, The Information Society: An International Journal, 27(4), 252–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ratto, M., Wylie, S.A. and Jalbert, K. (2014) ‘Introduction to the special forum on critical making as research program’, The Information Society: An International Journal, 30(4), 85–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rogers, R. (2013) Digital Methods. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Sanjek, R. (ed.) (1990) Fieldnotes. The Makings of Anthropology. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Savage, M. (2010). Identities and Social Change in Britain since 1940: The Politics of Method. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Savage, M. (2013) ‘The “social life of methods”: A critical introduction’, Theory, Culture and Society, 30(4), 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Savage, M. and Burrows, R. (2007) ‘The coming crisis of empirical sociology’, Sociology, 45(5), 885–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Turkle, S. (2007) Evocative Objects. Things We Think With. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Turner, F. (2009) ‘Burning man at Google: A cultural infrastructure for new media production’, New Media and Society, 11(1&2), 73–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adolfo Estalella 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adolfo Estalella

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations