After Method: Mess in Social Science Research

by John Law

John Law argues that methods don't just describe social realities but are also involved in creating them. The implications of this argument are highly significant. If this is the case, methods are always political, and it raises the question of what kinds of social realities we want to create.

Most current methods look for clarity and precision. It is usually said that only poor research produces messy findings, and the idea that things in the world might be fluid, elusive, or multiple is unthinkable. Law's startling argument is that this is wrong and it is time for a new approach. Many realities, he says, are vague and ephemeral. If methods want to know and help to shape the world, then they need to reinvent themselves and their politics to deal with mess. That is the challenge. Nothing less will do.

Genres: Sociology, Philosophy, Science, Academic, Nonfiction, Theory, Social Science

197 pages, Paperback

First published August 1, 2004

Reviews

[notgettingenough · Rating 4 out of 5]

Addressed particularly to budding academics.

I wonder how revolutionary this book was in 2004 when it first appeared. Even now, in a world where text books and zoom classes teach neat methods for students at university level - eg Neuman's Social Research Methods, considered a classic, doesn't mention Law's work, at least in the two editions I have - it apparently goes against the grain. We have a picture of how scientists to their thing, and no amount of pointing out that they live in messes quite contrary to those expectations, actually sinks through. Consequently, those in the field possibly hampered with the label social 'scientists', need to deliver packages which make sense even though they are generally investigating things that don't.

The book also feels prescient. Everything he says about the mess of reality, the inability to grab it without it slipping away, relates even more to the world of twenty years later when we are all hooked into the internet, with reality being all the murkier as a consequence. This is how he introduces the problem in 2004:

No doubt some things in the world can indeed be made clear and definite. Income distributions, global CO2 emissions, the boundaries of nation states, and terms of trade, these are the kinds of provisionally stable realities that social and natural science deal with more or less effectively. But alongside such phenomena the world is also textured in quite different ways. My argument is that academic methods of inquiry don’t really catch these. So what are the textures they are missing out on?

If we start to make a list then it quickly becomes clear that it is potentially endless. Pains and pleasures, hopes and horrors, intuitions and apprehensions, losses and redemptions, mundanities and visions, angels and demons, things that slip and slide, or appear and disappear, change shape or don’t have much form at all, unpredictabilities, these are just a few of the phenomena that are hardly caught by social science methods. It may be, of course, that they don’t belong to social science at all. But perhaps they do, or partly do, or should do. That, at any rate, is what I want to suggest. Parts of the world are caught in our ethnographies, our histories and our statistics. But other parts are not, or if they are then this is because they have been distorted into clarity. This is the problem I try to tackle. If much of the world is vague, diffuse or unspecific, slippery, emotional, ephemeral, elusive or indistinct, changes like a kaleidoscope, or doesn’t really have much of a pattern at all, then where does this leave social science? How might we catch some of the realities we are currently missing? Can we know them well? Should we know them? Is ‘knowing’ the metaphor that we need? And if it isn’t, then how might we relate to them? These are the issues that I open up in this book.

rest here:

https://alittleteaalittlechat.wordpre...

[Rita Brás · Rating 4 out of 5]

Desconstrói o paradigma cientifico hegemónico e eurocêntrico. Trabalho próximo das Teorias Actor-Rede e Teorias da Ciência e Tecnologia, com a complexidade habitual destas áreas temáticas, mas muito refrescante. Afirmação de que as metodologias não são neutras, são políticas e são ferramentas que contribuem para a construção das realidades. A metodologia hegemónica não acompanhou a evolução histórica e teórica e (já) não serve para perceber a fluidez e complexidade dos fenómenos sociais, que ultrapassam a ortodoxia dessa forma dominante de fazer ciência. Chega a ser reconfortante ler alguns dos seus argumentos epistemológicos e metodológicos aplicados às ciências sociais, principalmente se estiverem com uma crise de validação em relação ao vosso trabalho nas ciências sociais – quem nunca? Refuta a procura (contra-producente e falaciosa) de uma verdade última e universal - nenhuma teoria foi/é/será capaz de compreender todos os fenómenos, há sempre algo que não cabe - como estudar o que fica de fora, o que não é dito, os silêncios e as ausências? Como estudar o caos, o excesso e o contraditório? E o que é, afinal, a verdade? Quem é que a define? Desenvolve a discussão em torno destas questões. Argumenta que a verdade não deve ser objetivo último da ciência; propõe reconhecer valor científico ao caos. Para isso propõe a utilização de outras metodologias, alternativas e criativas, capazes de mobilizar o caos e o contraditório para a construção do conhecimento científico; e apresenta algumas conceptualizações novas e interessantes. Uma espécie de bíblia (que, no entanto, deixa de fora algumas discussões, como aquelas sobre a ética) para voltar de vez em quando, sempre que necessário. Casa bem com outro livro do autor 'Modes of Knowing: Resources from the Baroque' – mais leve e fluído.

[Ed Summers · Rating 4 out of 5]

I checked this out from the library, and it was recalled before I could get to the last chapter. Despite its title Law somehow manages to give friendly advice to those that find themselves cast adrift among the disciplinary fiefdoms of the sciences, social sciences and humanities. He offers a generative way of thinking that makes research seem hard and fun, and worth doing. I'm going to buy a copy & keep it close.

[Michael Palkowski · Rating 3 out of 5]

Law introduces the concept of methodological assemblage, by making two clear and undeniable propositions. He states that methodological tools help to enact/create the realities that they depict. A simple point that admittedly is drummed home in case study after case study in this text. Despite this irksome repetition, it is a point worth making and one that is largely minimised by researchers, who still maintain an objective/subjective dichotomy when it comes to data. Methodological tools are not neutral in the creation of knowledge and this is a solid epistemological point. The second statement is that whilst social science has moved through distinct periods of social theory, where we are now beyond the postmodern phase, methodological strategies have not progressed with this current. He embraces a type of experimentalism and a focus on other strategies for capturing the in-between moments. Doing so relies on more creative, serendipitous forms of method embracing allegory and metaphor.

"I do not want to legislate a particular suite of research methods” (6), "part of this, it is about creating metaphors and images for what is impossible or barely possible, unthinkable or almost unthinkable. Slippery, indistinct, elusive, complex, diffuse, messy, textured, vague, unspecific, confused, disordered, emotional, painful, pleasur- able, hopeful, horrific, lost, redeemed, visionary, angelic, demonic, mundane, intuitive, sliding and unpredictable, these are some of the metaphors I have used above.” (6)

Law is not being relativistic in his attempts to refashion methodological tools. He is also not suggesting "political quietism", or "philosophical idealism". I would place his position as attempting to bridge experimentalism with a form of realism. I will explain. On the political question, Law states, "Since social (and natural) science investigations interfere with the world, in one way or another they always make a difference, politically and otherwise. Things change as a result. The issue, then, is not to seek disengagement but rather with how to engage" (8). Research therefore should be more critical than it is, in understanding the political dimensions of method. On philosophical idealism, Law notes, "I am not saying that since the world defies any overall attempt to describe and understand it, we can therefore realistically believe anything about it we like...I argue....that there is a world out there and that knowledge and our other activities need to respond to its ‘out-thereness’". His ontological position is not simply a social constructivist, or an idealist therefore.

He does take the good bits from constructivism, mainly the historical/social recognition on how knowledge is produced in paradigms. As he states, "Not a problem with the historical position of specific methods- "Here the problem is not that our research methods (and claims about proper method) have been constructed in a specific historical context. Everything is constructed in a specific historical context and there can be no escape from history." (5).

The book offers a good discussion on these critical areas. The literature that is examined is mostly from the sociology of science, but Law does a great job of summing up the key arguments from the likes of Latour in the second chapter. Another reviewer commented on here that the book could be shorter and I agree with this sentiment. The main points of the book could easily be distilled into a journal article. The book merely provides the encyclopaedic index and bibliography.

[Justin Lahey · Rating 5 out of 5]

Note upfront that this book was an academic read included in the reading list for the Second Comprehensive Examination of my PhD. It's considered a must-read in the field of research methodologies, and rightfully so. John Law demonstrates where traditional research methods went wrong and makes an excellent case for the need of greater flexibility in methods. Through examples from fascinating case studies in fields such as medicine, engineering, and project management, Law illustrates that research methods don't just describe their objects of study but they also help to produce objects. Another important lesson is that research methods can turn apparently singular objects of study into multiples or even fractions, and that different realities can be enacted at different sites. The big takeaway in After Method is the fact that since many realities are vague by nature, then we need to rethink our methodological approaches as they need to be able to cope with the vagueness, the disorder, and yes, the mess that can be social research. John Law certainly succeeded in getting me to seriously revisit what I think of and how I will approach any social research project. An excellent and very insightful read.

[Thai Divone · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is hard to define this book, as it doesn't fall easily into any neat category. While it advocates itself as a methodology book, it is also "after method", which basically means that it goes all post-humanist and post-modern in its poststructuralist's version. And yet, this book is a very easy read (I read the last third quite sick, to say the least), while also being extremely illuminating. The heavy mortars are fired in the first three chapters, and yet I somewhat held my breath in order to see how the argument unfolds. I can't recommend this book enough.

[Fatemeh Haghi · Rating 2 out of 5]

این کتاب رو با ترجمه‌ی سیدمجتبی عزیزی که انتشارات ترجمان، منتشر کرده، خوندم؛ بعد از فصل دوم، اونجور که باید جذبم نکرد و دلسرد شدم؛ قسمتی از صحبت نویسنده رو می‌ذارم براتون:
این كتاب بررسی‌ای دربارۀ مسئلۀ روش است. استدلال كتاب این است كه روش در علوم اجتماعی (و نیز علوم طبیعی) به‌واسطۀ مجموعه‌ای از چشم‌بندی‌های قرن نوزدهمی و یا حتی قرن هفدهمیِ اروپایی-آمریكایی‌ها ایجاد شده است. بنابراین روش در فهم و ارائۀ خود دچار اشتباه است. در این كتاب نشان دادم كه روشْ مجموعه‌ای كم‌وبیش موفق از روندهای گزارش‌دهی دربارۀ واقعیتِ مفروض نیست. بلكه اثرگذار است. روشْ ترتیبات و نحوۀ گردآوری چیزها و تلقی از ترتیبات آن چیزها را تولید می‌كند كه می‌توانستند به‌صورت دیگری نیز باشند. اما چگونه به چنین چیزی بیندیشیم؟ در این كتاب، كوشیده‌ام تا مجموعه‌ای از واژگان برای فكركردن دربارۀ روش، عملكرد و كاركرد آن را تولید كنم.

[Roman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Книга неплохо легла на хм... мои мировоззрения. Расширил, так сказать, свой словарик для взаимодействия с Миром.

[Thorben Simonsen · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was thought provoking and it pointed at some very important issues related to discussions on methedology. The first chapter also functions as a good introduction into the broader field of STS literature.

[Ben · Rating 4 out of 5]

Smart introduction to STS (Science and Technology Studies). What is a fact? etc. A good pep talk for anyone in a field where method handbooks seem a little strained.

[Kathy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good thought-provoking read, but (IMHO) could be about half as long. I read the first and last chapters and skimmed the middle ones.