Interface Methods Renegotiating relations between digital social research , STS and the sociology of innovation

This paper introduces a distinctive approach to methods development in digital social research called “interface methods.” We begin by discussing various methodological confluences between digital media, social studies of science and technology (STS) and sociology. Some authors have posited significant overlap between, on the one hand, sociological and STS concepts, and on the other hand, the ontologies of digital media. Others have emphasised the significant differences between prominent methods built into digital media and those of STS and sociology. This paper advocates a third approach, one that a) highlights the dynamism and relative under-determinacy of digital methods, and b) affirms that multiple methodological traditions intersect in digital devices and research. We argue that these two circumstances enable a distinctive approach to methodology in digital social research – thinking methods as ‘interface methods’ and the paper contextualizes this approach in two different ways. First, we show how the proliferation of online data tools or ‘digital analytics’ opens up distinctive opportunities for critical and creative engagement with methods development at the intersection of sociology, STS and digital research. Second, we discuss a digital research project in which we investigated a specific ‘interface method’, namely co-occurrence analysis. In this digital pilot study we implemented this method in a critical and creative way to analyse and visualise ‘issue dynamics’ in the area of climate change on Twitter. We evaluate this project in the light of our principal objective, which was to test the possibilities for the modification of methods through experimental implementation and interfacing of various methodological traditions. To conclude, we discuss a major obstacle to the development of ‘interface methods’: digital media are marked by particular quantitative dynamics that seem adverse to the methodological commitments of sociology and STS. To address this, we argue in favour of a methodological approach in digital social research that affirms its mal-adjustment to the research methods that are prevalent in the medium.

[1]  A. Downs Up and Down with Ecology--The Issue Attention Cycle , 1972 .

[2]  M. Callon,et al.  From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis , 1983 .

[3]  M. Callon,et al.  Mapping the dynamics of science and technology : sociology of science in the real world , 1988 .

[4]  Neal S. Coulter,et al.  Software Engineering as Seen through Its Research Literature: A Study in Co-Word Analysis , 1998, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[5]  Edgar A. Whitley,et al.  The Golem: What you Should Know about Science , 1999 .

[6]  Noortje Marres,et al.  Depluralising the Web and Repluralising Public Debate: The Case of the GM Food Debate on the Web , 2000 .

[7]  N. Marres,et al.  Landscaping climate change: a mapping technique for understanding science and technology debates on the World Wide Web , 2000 .

[8]  Celia Lury,et al.  Brands: The Logos of the Global Economy , 2004 .

[9]  N. Marres,et al.  Recipe for tracing the fate of issues and their publics on the Web , 2005 .

[10]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Web issue analysis: An integrated water resource management case study , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[11]  Andrea Scharnhorst,et al.  Webindicators: a new generation of S&T indicators , 2006 .

[12]  Roger Burrows,et al.  Sociology and, of and in Web 2.0: Some Initial Considerations , 2007 .

[13]  N. Marres,et al.  Subsuming the ground: how local realities of the Fergana Valley, the Narmada Dams and the BTC pipeline are put to use on the Web , 2008 .

[14]  David Weimer Bibliography , 2018, Medical History. Supplement.

[15]  Francis Chateauraynaud Public controversies and the Pragmatics of Protest , 2009 .

[16]  Richard A. Rogers The end of the virtual: Digital methods , 2009 .

[17]  Mike Savage,et al.  Contemporary Sociology and the Challenge of Descriptive Assemblage , 2009 .

[18]  L. Suchman Agencies in Technology Design: Feminist Reconfigurations* , 2020, Machine Ethics and Robot Ethics.

[19]  T. Venturini Diving in magma: how to explore controversies with actor-network theory , 2010 .

[20]  Maiko Spiess Sorting Things Out - Classification and Its Consequences , 2010 .

[21]  José van Dijck,et al.  Wisdom of the crowd or technicity of content? Wikipedia as a sociotechnical system , 2010, New Media Soc..

[22]  Emma Uprichard,et al.  Dirty Data: Longitudinal Classification Systems , 2011 .

[23]  Noortje Marres,et al.  The costs of public involvement: everyday devices of carbon accounting and the materialization of participation , 2011 .

[24]  Cordula Kropp,et al.  Infrastructures of risk: a mapping approach towards controversies on risks , 2011 .

[25]  M. Savage,et al.  The Double Social Life of Methods , 2011 .

[26]  Lars Kai Hansen,et al.  Good Friends, Bad News - Affect and Virality in Twitter , 2011, ArXiv.

[27]  Celia Lury,et al.  Inventive methods : the happening of the social , 2012 .

[28]  K. Crawford,et al.  Technological, and Scholarly Phenomenon , 2012 .

[29]  N. Marres The Redistribution of Methods: On Intervention in Digital Social Research, Broadly Conceived , 2012 .

[30]  B. Latour,et al.  'The whole is always smaller than its parts': a digital test of Gabriel Tardes' monads. , 2012, The British journal of sociology.

[31]  Taina Bucher,et al.  Want to be on the top? Algorithmic power and the threat of invisibility on Facebook , 2012, New Media Soc..

[32]  Stefan Stieglitz,et al.  Quantitative Approaches to Comparing Communication Patterns on Twitter , 2012 .

[33]  Les Back,et al.  A Manifesto for Live Methods: Provocations and Capacities , 2012 .

[34]  Marina Jirotka,et al.  Supporting Scientific Collaboration: Methods, Tools and Concepts , 2013, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[35]  Celia Lury Going Live: Towards an Amphibious Sociology , 2012 .

[36]  Tommaso Venturini,et al.  Building on faults: How to represent controversies with digital methods , 2012, Public understanding of science.

[37]  Using Social Media Data Aggregators to Do Social Research , 2012 .

[38]  B. E. Rnard Climate Change Sceptics , 2013 .

[39]  Greg Elmer,et al.  THE RESEARCH POLITICS OF SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS , 2013 .

[40]  Astrid Mager,et al.  Technoscientific promotion and biofuel policy: How the press and search engines stage the biofuel controversy , 2013 .

[41]  M. Savage,et al.  Reassembling Social Science Methods: The Challenge of Digital Devices , 2013 .

[42]  Anne Helmond,et al.  The like economy: Social buttons and the data-intensive web , 2013, New Media Soc..

[43]  Anne Beaulieu,et al.  Virtual Knowledge. Experimenting in the Humanities and the Social Sciences. , 2013 .

[44]  Bernhard Rieder,et al.  UvA-DARE ( Digital Academic Repository ) Mining one percent of Twitter : collections , baselines , sampling , 2013 .

[45]  K. Asdal From Climate Issue to Oil Issue: Offices of Public Administration, Versions of Economics, and the Ordinary Technologies of Politics , 2014 .

[46]  David Mason,et al.  Digital Methods , 2014, Online Inf. Rev..

[47]  James Mussell Raw Data is an Oxymoron , 2014 .

[48]  N. Marres Why Map Issues? On Controversy Analysis as a Digital Method , 2015, Science, technology & human values.

[49]  M. Michael,et al.  Speculative Method and Twitter: Bots, Energy and Three Conceptual Characters , 2015 .

[50]  Julie Bouchard,et al.  Scraping the Social? Issues in real-time social research , 2015 .

[51]  Kate Crawford,et al.  What is a flag for? Social media reporting tools and the vocabulary of complaint , 2016, New Media Soc..