Rene Crusoe and his PhD quest: Thoughts on the methodology of my PhD

27-11-2014

If Law 2004 is right in his assumption that no method is neutral as it always reinforces a particular type of social order. Then, this also applies for the results of this methodology, i.e. the knowledge created. Because, the methodology used to create this method is intimately bound up with the knowledge creating process, as it provides the lens through which knowledge is formulated, framed and analysed (c.f. Pinch and Bijker 1987).

If this is the case, than the focus on impact of this knowledge is not a far-fetched concept, as it gives you a means to make these choices between different methodologies. Because, “which realities [do we want]? Which do we want to help to make more real, and which less real? How do we want to interfere (because interfere we will, one way or another)?” (Law and Urry 2004:406). Therefore, when policy makers want to make “people think just a little bit more about how what they’re doing [and how it] could be used in the future” (Calvert 2006:211). The focus on impact addresses exactly the aforementioned point about ‘which reality do we want?’ So, the questions is why should or shouldn’t we have the discussion of impact?

By addressing this question in the forms of interviews, it allows a chance to reveal the underlying assumptions of the epistemology, ontology and social values used by scientist, policy makers and end-users. In fact, interviews quite possibly represent the only form of approach that comes close to in being able to analyse this. Because, you are interested in;

The personal views of the subjects
The connections the subjects draw
The inferences the subjects make
The assumptions the subjects make
etc., to only mention a few

This creates a highly complex network, were all these aspects intermingle to form the opinion of the subjects (c.f. Shapin 2010). You cannot choose between a realist, a phenomenological or a social constructionist position; it is all of these and more. If you use, any singular approach, position or analysis from this trifecta you are missing the subtleties, interconnections and intricacies of the situation. As such, “we will have to learn how to slow down at each step.” (Latour 2005:17). This obviously will make the analysis “slower and harder” (Venturini 2010:259), but it’s the only way grasp the entirety of the complex assemblage what is society and science. This is an entire new epistemology (Latour, Harmon et al. 2011). But, only this “slowciology” (Latour 2005:122) allows you not to crush the other aspects of the network, that do not fall into the analytical boxes of the conventional trifectas of epistemologies.

As this represents a new epistemology; traditional quantitative or qualitative method would surely give you some insights into the behaviour of the subjects, which might be interesting of it in of itself, but leaves you unable to address the why question. Only, talking to these subjects, exploring the complex network of associations allows you the slightest chance about some sort of inference to address the why. Because, “[o]ur only hope, our only peace is to understand [the why … without understanding the why] you are powerless” (Wachowski and Wachowski 2003).[i] So, the best way forward is to ask them why?

References

Calvert, J. (2006). "What’s special about basic research?" Science, Technology & Human Values 31(2): 199-220.

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social-an introduction to actor-network-theory, Oxford University Press.

Latour, B., G. Harmon, et al. (2011). Prince and the Wolf: Latour and Harman at the LSE, The, John Hunt Publishing.

Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research, Psychology Press.

Law, J. and J. Urry (2004). "Enacting the social." Economy and society 33(3): 390-410.

Pinch, T. J. and W. E. Bijker (1987). "The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts: Or How the Sociology of." The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology 17.

Shapin, S. (2010). Never pure: historical studies of science as if it was produced by people with bodies, situated in time, space, culture, and society, and struggling for credibility and authority, JHU Press.

Venturini, T. (2010). "Diving in magma: How to explore controversies with actor-network theory." Public Understanding of Science 19(3): 258-273.

[i] Matrix Reloaded 2003 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0234215/