Raiding the inarticulate since 2010

accelerated academy acceleration agency AI Algorithmic Authoritarianism and Digital Repression archer Archive Archiving artificial intelligence automation Becoming Who We Are Between Post-Capitalism and Techno-Fascism big data blogging capitalism ChatGPT claude Cognitive Triage: Practice, Culture and Strategies Communicative Escalation and Cultural Abundance: How Do We Cope? Corporate Culture, Elites and Their Self-Understandings craft creativity critical realism data science Defensive Elites Digital Capitalism and Digital Social Science Digital Distraction, Personal Agency and The Reflexive Imperative Digital Elections, Party Politics and Diplomacy digital elites Digital Inequalities Digital Social Science Digital Sociology digital sociology Digital Universities elites Fragile Movements and Their Politics Cultures generative AI higher education Interested labour Lacan Listening LLMs margaret archer Organising personal morphogenesis Philosophy of Technology platform capitalism platforms Post-Democracy, Depoliticisation and Technocracy post-truth psychoanalysis public engagement public sociology publishing Reading realism reflexivity scholarship sexuality Shadow Mobilization, Astroturfing and Manipulation Social Media Social Media for Academics social media for academics social ontology social theory sociology technology The Content Ecosystem The Intensification of Work theory The Political Economy of Digital Capitalism The Technological History of Digital Capitalism Thinking trump twitter Uncategorized work writing zizek

Rethinking Empirical Social Science

In this paper in Dialogues in Human Geography, Evelyn Ruppert from Goldsmiths College makes a case for the need to rethink empirical social science in the face of the epistemological and methodological challenge of ‘big data’:

While Big Data – the vast amounts of digital information generated, accumulated and stored in myriad databases and repositories, both online and offline – does present specific challenges to the geography discipline, I would suggest that it also calls for interdisciplinary approaches perhaps more than ever. There are of course many different rationales for interdisciplinarity but in the case of Big Data I will attend to two. First, the distributed relations and entanglements of ownership and expertise that make up Big Data call not only for interdisciplinary approaches but also cross- sectoral engagements between the social sciences, industry, government and business. And second, the ontological and epistemological consequences of methods that take up Big Data cut across disciplines and provide an opportunity for collaboration on the underlying theoretical propositions as well as the vexed political questions of data privacy, rights, ethics and ownership.

[…]

All of these arguments for interdisciplinarity and collaboration are not a call for turning social scientists into statisticians or computer scientists, but for ‘socialising’ what could otherwise become a positivist science of individuals and societies or lead to re-inscribing a division between quantitative and qualitative methods. Retreating and engaging in internal debates within social science disciplines cannot achieve this, as Savage and Burrows (2007) also warn. Instead, it means to explore methods of doing immersive interdisciplinary data work by innovatively, critically and reflexively engaging with new forms of data. This calls for experimenting with various data sources and techniques, innovating methods, and working with researchers in computing and other sciences.

Dialogues in Human Geography. November 2013 vol. 3 no. 3 268-273

There’s a pre-print available here.