Search

In a number of linked articles and monographs over the last decade (e.g. Love, 2010, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017), literary scholar and critic Heather Love has called for a descriptive (re)turn in the humanities, repeatedly taking up examples of descriptive methods in the social sciences as exemplifying what that (re)turn might look like and achieve. Those of us working as sociologists, anthropologists, science and technology studies scholars and researchers in allied social science fields thus find ourselves reflected back in Love's work, encountering our own research practices in an unfamiliar light through it. In a period where our established methods and analytical priorities are subject to challenges on many fronts from within our own disciplines, it is hard not be struck by Love's provocative invocation of the social sciences as interlocutors and see in it an invitation to contribute to the debate she has sought to initiate by revisiting our own approaches to the problem of description. Inspired by Love's intervention, the eight papers that form this Special Issue demonstrate that by re-engaging with description we stand to learn a great deal. While the articles themselves are topically distinct and geographically varied, they are all based on empirical research and written to facilitate a reorientation to the role of description in our research practices. What exactly is going on when we describe an ancient papyrus as present or missing, a machine as intelligent, noise as music, a disease as undiagnosable, a death as good or bad, deserved or undeserved, care as appropriate or inappropriate, policies as failing or effective? As the papers show, these are important questions to ask. By asking them, we find ourselves in positions to better understand what goes into 'indexing and making visible forms of material and social reality' (Love, 2013: 412) as well as what is involved, more troublingly, in erasing, making invisible and dematerialising those realities or even, indeed, in uncovering those erasures and the means by which they were effected. As this special issue underlines, thinking with Love by thinking with descriptions is a rewarding exercise precisely because it opens these matters up to view. We hope others take up Love's invitation to re-engage with description for that very reason. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary : How does one go about doing or engaging in ethnomethodological study of local occasions? Would such study be of value for social workers, hence would it help them to understand the everyday accomplishment of practice as social work? Harold Garfinkel, the founder of ethnomethodology, argued that the task is to start with and to be in the midst of ordinary and everyday activities. A beginning in ordinary, mundane, and everyday activities is also to be surrounded by taken-for-granted understandings, frameworks, and facts or facticities. The focus on "facticities" of everyday things directs us to attend to utterly ordinary and mundane interactions, and here there is deep congruence with social work interests and practices. Findings: This paper turns to Garfinkel's oeuvre to set out in readily understandable language the orientation and tools needed for social workers to do ethnomethodological studies. A focal question is: Just how might social workers in the midst of practice actually go about engaging in EM? Application: By taking up tools from ethnomethodology, social workers can better understand and explicate the essential reflexivity of their everyday practice. As a result, EM provides a pathway for both understanding and teaching effective social work through a reflective and reflexive turn. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this paper is to adumbrate methods more suitable to a posthuman social science, so as to better attend to the digital datafication of life. Five core functions of research method are presented. The first three - the desire for origins, the need to exclude, and the establishment of a regime of labour - often reinstate social orders and hierarchies, and heavily control if not curtail knowledge production. The fourth function opens onto new ontologies of the social, when methods emerge out of transformative historical moments, and data floods and then overturns the old methods. The fifth underscores how new research methods are innovative if they engage with time or temporality in new ways, queering the temporal logic of old methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents information on the periodical, Sociological Methodology. Sociological Methodology is a journal that seeks to publish excellent contributions to each and every one of the many and diverse research methodologies that sociologists use in their research,or that they would want to use, if they knew of these methods or how to adapt them to sociological analysis. Many think of sociological methodology as a synonym for statistics or quantitative research methods. These Pavlovian responses are unfortunate. The editors of Sociological Methodology have consistently sought outstanding papers on all sociologically useful methods, including those that are generally perceived to be non-statistical and non-quantitative. Sociological Methodology is a refereed journal. The editor picks referees to render opinions on papers,makes editorial decisions based substantially (but not entirely) on referee reports, protects reviewers' identities from wounded authors,and does his best to protect authors from unfair, incompetent, or simply mistaken reviews. The editor also does his best to protect authors from his own errors by attending carefully to the comments of reviewers and by honoring any reasoned request for reconsideration and re-review. The system works on a web of redundant checks and balances,overseen by the editor.

Particularly during the 1940s, Robert Merton developed a loosely knit methodological program including such key concepts as "structure and functional analysis" and "middle range theories" which provided guidance for sociological work over several decades and which retains some considerable relevance today. However, there are inconsistencies and incompletions in this program which have become more problematic over time. The paper questions the depth of these difficulties and also points out that in the historical circumstances of a limited stimulus provided by the paucity of critique written at the time and Robert Merton's operational style, it is not surprising that difficulties were not attended to. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]