PLEASE NOTE this is a 2014-15 reading list—the precise content may change in future
years.
Week 2: The Possibility of Naturalism
In this session we explore arguments about the nature and purpose of the
social sciences. What are the social sciences for? How have conflicts over
this question shaped their development? Should we understand social
science as something fundamentally continuous with natural science? Or are
the social sciences intrinsically different from them? Beginning with a
discussion of naturalist and anti-naturalist positions, we will consider these
key questions and their practical implications for social inquiry. This will
include questions of objectivity, subjectivity, ontology and epistemology.
Finally, we consider more recent attempts to transcend the dichotomy
between naturalism and anti-naturalism.
Seminar Questions:
1. What do we mean when we describe something as ‘scientific’?
2. How, if at all, are the social sciences different from the
natural sciences?
3. What might naturalism lead us to miss when explaining how a
‘seminar’ works? What might anti-naturalism lead us to miss?
No Essential Reading
Further Reading:
Bhaskar, R. (2013). The possibility of naturalism: A philosophical
critique of the contemporary human sciences. Routledge.
Elder-Vass, D. (2010) The Causal Power of Social Structures Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.267
Elder-Vass, D. (2012) The Reality of Social Construction Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
King, A. 1999. ‘The Impossibility of Naturalism: The Antinomies of
Bhaskar’s Realism,’ Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 29 (3)
3
Goldthorpe, J. H. (2000). On sociology: Numbers, narratives, and the
integration of research and theory. Oxford University Press.
Little, D. (1991). Varieties of social explanation. Boulder, CO: Westview
MacIntyre, A. (1984) After Virtue Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame
Press.
MacIntyre, A. (1999) Rational Dependent Animals London: Duckworth.
Plummer, K. (2001) Documents of Life 2: An Invitation to a Critical
Humanism. London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage Publications
Limited.
Plummer, K. (1995) Telling Sexual Stories: Power, Change, and Social
Worlds London: Routledge.
Reed, I. and J. Alexander (2009) ‘Social Science as Reading and
Performance: A cultural-sociological understanding of epistemology
European Journal of Social Theory 12(1): 21-41.
Rorty, R. (1989) Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Rorty, R. (1991) Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth: Philosophical Papers
(Volume 1) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Sayer, A. (2004) Realism and Social Science London, Thousand Oaks and
New Delhi: Sage Publications Limited
Sayer, A. (2011) Why Things Matter to People: Social Science, Values
and Ethical Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Searle, J. R. (1995) The Construction of Social Reality. New York: Simon
and Schuster
Taylor, C. (1985). Philosophical papers: Volume 2, philosophy and the
human sciences. Cambridge University Press.
4
Week 3: Social Theory and Social Science
In the first half of this session, we explore the history of social theory
within the modern social sciences, beginning with the functionalist theory of
Talcott Parsons and the ‘orthodox consensus’ which it helped establish. We
then consider theoretical movements which challenged functionalism and
fragmented this temporary consensus: structuralism, post-structuralism and
interpretive micro sociologies. The attempted synthesis of Giddens is
introduced as a bridge to contemporary social theory. In turning to the
present day, we consider the intellectual legacy of the ‘paradigm war’ and
what some have criticized as a present day ‘peace treaty’ in social science.
We then look at some of the key currents in contemporary social theory:
realist social theory, relational sociology and analytical sociology.
Seminar Questions:
1.What is social scientific research for? Why does Oakley argue that rigour
is so important?
2.Why would conducting qualitative or quantitative research be seen as
having political consequences?
3.Are there limitations on how far we can combine different theories and
methodologies?
Essential Reading:
Oakley, A. (1999). Paradigm wars: some thoughts on a personal and public
trajectory. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 2(3), 247254.
Further Reading:
Alexander, J. C. (Ed.). (1987). The micro-macro link. Univ of
California Press.
5
Alexander, J. C. (1987). Twenty lectures: sociological theory since World
War II. Columbia University Press.
Archer M.S. (1988) Culture and Agency: The Place of Culture in Social
Theory Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Archer, M. S. (1995) Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Archer, M. S. (2011) ‘Morphogenesis: Realism’s explanatory framework’,
in Maccarini, A., Morandi, E., and Prandini, R. (eds) (2011) Sociological
Realism Taylor & Francis
Crossley, N. (2010) Towards Relational Sociology New York and London:
Routledge
Donati, P. (2010) Relational Sociology: A New Paradigm for the Social
Sciences London and New York: Routledge.
Donati, P. (2013) ‘Engagement as a social relation’, in M. S. Archer and A.
Maccarini (eds) Engaging with the World New York and London:
Routledge.
Holmwood, J. (2011a) ‘Sociology after Fordism: Prospects and problems’
European Journal of Social Theory 14: 537-556.
King, A. (2010) ‘The Odd Couple: Margaret Archer, Anthony Giddens and
British social theory’ The British Journal of Sociology 61(1): 253-60.
Giddens, A. (1979) Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure,
and Contradiction in Social Analysis (Volume 241) Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
6
Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of
Structuration Cambridge: Polity
Layder, D. (1997) Modern Social Theory: Key Debates and New
Directions London: UCL Press.
Little, D. (2012). Analytical sociology and the rest of sociology.
Sociologica, 6(1)
Maccarini, A. M. (2011) ‘Towards a New European Sociology, in A.
Maccarini, E. Morandi and R. Prandini (eds) Sociological Realism. Oxford:
Routledge.
Mills, C. W. (2000) The Sociological Imagination Oxford: Oxford
University Press
Mouzelis, N. (1995) Sociological Theory: What went Wrong? Diagnosis and
Remedies New York and London: Routledge
Mouzelis, N. (2008) Modern and Postmodern Social Theorizing: Bridging
the Divide Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Outhwaite, W. (2009) ‘Canon Formation in Late 20th-century British
Sociology Sociology 43(6): 1029-45
Smith, C. (2014) The Sacred Project of American Sociology. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Turner, C. (2010) Investigating Sociological Theory London, Thousand
Oaks and New Delhi: Sage Publications Limited.
7
Week 4: Social Science and Social Change
One of the central concerns of the social sciences has been the nature and
implications of social change. This session introduces competing theories of
social change and considers why this issue has been so prominent within the
history of social inquiry. Beginning with the classical sociologists who
sought to understand the social changes, such as urbanization, which were
rapidly transforming the society within which they lived, we will then
discuss the ‘malaise of modernity’: individualism, disenchantment and
instrumentalism. Turning to the present day, we consider three competing
accounts of social change. The theory of ‘Late Modernity’ offered by
Anthony Giddens, the account of ‘Social Acceleration’ offered by Harmut
Rosa and the idea of ‘Social Morphogenesis’ developed by Margaret Archer
and her collaborators. In the seminar we’ll discuss the underlying issues
raised by these competing theories of change: how should we choose
between them?
Seminar Questions:
1. How might social change manifest itself in our everyday lives?
2. What are examples of social changes that might not be recognized
as such in everyday life?
3. Is social change always problematic? What are examples of
positive social changes?
4. Does a focus on breaks with the past risk obscuring continuities?
Essential Reading:
Crow, G. (2005) ‘Towards a sociology of endings’ Sociological Research
Online 10(3).
Further Reading:
8
Alexander, J. C. (1995) Fin de Siècle Social Theory: Relativism, Reduction,
and the Problem of Reason London: Verso.
Archer, M. S. (2013a) ‘On the Vocation of Sociology as Morphogenesis
Intensifies’Global Dialogue (3):1
Archer, M. S. (2012) The Reflexive Imperative in Late Modernity
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Archer, M.S. (2013c) ‘Social Morphogenesis and the Prospects of
Morphogenetic Society’, in Archer, M. S. (ed.) Social Morphogenesis
Springer
Bellah, R. N., R. Madsen, W. M. Sullivan, A. Swindler and S. M. Tipton
(2007) Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American
Life Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Beck, U. and E. Beck-Gernsheim (2002) Individualization: Institutionalized
Individualism and its Social and Political Consequences London, Thousand
Oaks and New Delhi: Sage Publications Limited
Bauman, Z. (1991) Modernity and Ambivalence Cambridge: Polity.
Bauman, Z. (1997) Postmodernity and its Discontents Cambridge: Polity.
Bauman, Z. (2000) Liquid Modernity Cambridge: Polity. Bauman, Z.
(2001) The Individualized Society Cambridge: Polity.
Bauman, Z. (2005) Liquid Life Cambridge: Polity.
Bauman, Z. (2007) Consuming Life Cambridge: Polity.
9
Bauman, Z. and C. Rovirosa-Madrazo (2010) Living on Borrowed Time:
Conversations with Citlali Rovirosa-Madrazo Cambridge: Polity.
Carrigan, M. (2010) ‘Realism, Reflexivity, Conflation, and Individualism’
Journal of Critical Realism 9(3): 384-96.
Callinicos, A. (2013) Bonfire of Illusions: The Twin Crises of the Liberal
WorldJohn Wiley & Sons.
Castells, M. (1996) The Rise of the Network Society (The Information Age:
Economy, Society and Culture, Volume 1) Oxford: Blackwell.
Castells, M. (1997) The Power of Identity (The Information Age: Economy,
Society and Culture, Volume 2) Oxford: Blackwell.
Castells, M. (1998) End of Millenium (The Information Age: Economy,
Society and Culture, Volume 3) Oxford: Blackwell.
Elliott, A. and C. Lemert (2009) The New Individualism: The Emotional
Costs of Globalization (2nd edition) Oxford: Routledge.
Furlong, A. and F. Cartmel (2006) Young People and Social Change Open
University Press.
France, A. (2007) Understanding Youth in Late Modernity Open University
Press
Giddens, A. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity The Raymond Fred
West memorial lectures at Stanford University. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Identity in the
Late Modern Age Cambridge: Polity.
10
Giddens, A. (1992) The Transformation of Intimacy Cambridge: Polity.
Heiskala, R. (2011) ‘From Modernity through Postmodernity to
Reflexive Modernization: Did we learn anything?’ International Review
of Sociology—Revue Internationale de Sociologie 21(1): 3-19
Heelas, P., S. Lash and P. Morris (eds) (1996) Detraditionalization: Critical
Reflections on Authority and Identity Cambridge, MA: Blackwell
Rosa, H. (2013). Social acceleration: A new theory of modernity. Columbia
University Press.
Sennett, R. (2007) The Culture of the New Capitalism. Yale University
Press.
Taylor, C. (1991). The ethics of authenticity. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Young, J. (2007) The Vertigo of Late Modernity London, Thousand
Oaks and New Delhi: Sage Publications Limited.
Žižek, S. (2009) First as Tragedy, then as Farce London: Verso.
11
Week 5: Self and Society
Closely connected to the question of social change is that of the relationship
between individuals and society. Many of the concerns entailed by theories
of social change relate to the implications of these changes for the lives of
those within a given society. This session builds on the previous week and
considers the interconnections between social change and personal life. We
consider some of the claims made by Anthony Giddens and Margaret Archer
about the changing role of individual decision making under conditions of
late modernity. Finally, we explore the implications of technology for
selfhood within contemporary society, addressing the Quantified Self
movement in particular and digital technology more generally.
Seminar questions:
1. Why might ‘belonging’ be a useful concept for understanding the
relationship between self and society?
2. Does life under late modernity force us to make more decisions than
has previously been the case?
3. Is digital technology bringing new kinds of selves into being? Or is it
simply allowing people to relate to themselves in new ways?
Essential Reading:
May, V. (2011). Self, belonging and social change. Sociology, 45(3), 363378.
Further Reading:
Adams, M. (2004) ‘Whatever will be, will be: Trust, fate and the reflexive
self’ Culture & Psychology 10(4): 387-408.
Archer, M. S. (2003) Structure, Agency and the Internal Conversation
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12
Archer, M. S. (2007) Making our Way through the World: Human
Reflexivity and Social Mobility Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Archer, M. S. (ed.) (2009) Conversations about Reflexivity Oxford:
Routledge.
Archer, M. S. (2013b) ‘Reconceptualizing socialization as reflexive
engagement’, in M. S. Archer and A. Maccarini (eds) (2013) Engaging
with the World. Oxford: Routledge.
Arnett, J. J. (2007) ‘Emerging adulthood: What is it, and what is it
good for?’ Child development perspectives 1(2): 68-73.
Atkinson, W. (2010) Individualization and Late Modernity: In Search of
the Reflexive Worker Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Burkitt, I. (2012). ‘Emotional reflexivity: feeling, emotion and imagination
in reflexive dialogues’ Sociology 46(3): 458-72
Caetano, A. (2014). Defining personal reflexivity A critical reading of
Archer’s approach. European Journal of Social Theory, 1368431014549684.
Chalari, A. (2009) Approaches to the Individual: The Relationship between
Internal and External Conversation Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
Crossley, N. (2001a) The Social Body: Habit, Identity and Desire London,
Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage Publications Limited.
Gergen, K. (1991) The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in
Contemporary LifeNew York: Basic Books.
Gill, R. (2008) ‘Culture and Subjectivity in Neoliberal and Postfeminist
13
Times. Subjectivity 25(1): 432-45
Heaphy, B. (2007) Late Modernity and Social Change: Reconstructing
Social and Personal Life London and New York: Routledge.
Holmes, M. (2010) ‘The Emotionalization of Reflexivity’ Sociology
44(1): 139-54.
Holland, J. and R. Thomson (2009) ‘Gaining Perspective on Choice and
Fate: Revisiting critical moments’ European Societies 11(3): 451-69.
Howard, C. (ed.) (2007) Contested Individualization: Debates about
Contemporary Personhood Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lasch, C. (1985) The Minimal Self: Psychic Survival in Troubled
Times London: Pan.
Lasch, C. (1991) The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age
of Diminishing Expectations London: WW Norton & Company
Layder, D. (2004) Emotion in Social Life: The Lost Heart of Society
London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage Publications Limited.
Mutch, A. (2004) ‘Constraints on the Internal Conversation: Margaret
Archer and the structural shaping of thought’ Journal for the Theory
of Social Behaviour. 34(4): 429-45.
Mouzelis, N. (2010) ‘Self and Self—Other Reflexivity: The apophatic
dimension’ European Journal of Social Theory 13(2): 271-84.
Mouzelis, N. (2007) ‘Habitus and Reflexivity: Restructuring Bourdieu's
theory of practice’ Sociological Research Online 12(6): 9.
14
Pilkington, H. (2007) ‘In Good Company: Risk, security and choice in
young people's drug decisions’ The Sociological Review 55(2), 373-92.
Roseneil, S. and S. Budgeon (2004) ‘Cultures of Intimacy and Care beyond
“the Family”: Personal life and Social Change in the early 21st century’
Current Sociology 52: 135-159.
Roseneil, S. (2007) ‘Queer Individualization: The transformation of personal
life in the early 21st century’ NORA - Nordic Journal of Feminist and
Gender Research 15(2-3): 84-99.
Sennett, R. (1998) The Corrosion of Character: The Personal
Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism W. W. Norton & Company.
Plumridge, L. and R. Thomson (2003) ‘Longitudinal Qualitative Studies and
the Reflexive Self International Journal of Social Research Methodology
6(3): 213-22.
Porpora, Douglas (2002) Landscapes of the Soul: The Loss of Moral
Meaning in American Life Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, C. (2003) Moral, Believing Animals: Human Personhood and Culture
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, C. (2010) What Is a Person? Rethinking Humanity, Social Life and
the Moral Good from the Person Up Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Smith, C. (2011) Lost in Transition: The Dark Side of Emerging Adulthood
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swedberg, R. (2011) ‘Thinking and Sociology. Journal of Classical
Sociology 11(1): 31-49.
15
Week 6: Social Life of Methods
While research methods are often seen as neutral tools through which to
investigate social reality, a recent programme of research by sociologists
influenced by Science and Technology Studies (STS) has argued for the
need to call attention to the ‘Social Life of Methods’. In this session, we
consider the approach they have developed as a basis to explore the status of
methods and methodology in relation to the theoretical and empirical
questions addressed elsewhere in the module. In treating methods as objects
of inquiry in their own right, the Social Life of Methods can help us better
understand the way in which social research methods have been shaped by
their context and have also contributed to shaping it by allowing certain
possibilities and foreclosing others.
Seminar Questions
1. What does it mean to say that methods help shape the social world?
2. Should studying the social life of methods lead us to be sceptical about
the objectivity of research conducted using a particular method?
3. How have research methods been shaped by processes of
social change? How have they contributed to them?
Essential Reading:
Law, J., Ruppert, E., & Savage, M. (2011). The double social life of
methods. Available at http://research.gold.ac.uk/7987/
Further Reading:
Back, L., & Puwar, N. (Eds.). (2012). Live methods. Wiley-Blackwell.
Beer, D. (2014). Punk sociology. Palgrave Macmillan.
Bhaskar, R. (2010). Reclaiming reality: A critical introduction to
contemporary philosophy. Taylor & Francis.
Law, J., & Ruppert, E. (2013). The social life of methods: Devices. Journal
of Cultural Economy, 6(3), 229-240.
16
Lury, C. (2012). Going live: towards an amphibious sociology. The
Sociological Review, 60(S1), 184-197.
Marres, N. (2012). The redistribution of methods: on intervention in digital
social research, broadly conceived. The Sociological Review, 60(S1), 139165.
Savage, M. (2010) Identities and Social Change in Britain since 1940: The
Politics of Method Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Savage, M. (2013). The ‘Social Life of Methods’: a critical
introduction. Theory, Culture & Society, 30(4), 3-21.
Uprichard, E. (2012). Being stuck in (live) time: the sticky sociological
imagination. The Sociological Review, 60(S1), 124-138.
17
Week 7: Social Media and the Challenge of Big Data
In recent years, the notion of ‘Big Data’ has gained popularity, with some
arguing that it heralds a revolutionary shift in the possibilities for social
inquiry. While the social sciences have traditionally tended to rely on
methods which seek to elicit a reaction from subjects through a variety of
means, the increasing centrality of digital technology to social processes has
led to a proliferation of data produced as a by-product of other activities. We
will discuss examples of such by-product or transactional data and consider
the ways in which it differs from the forms of data which the social sciences
have tended to work with. Finally we consider some of the ethical challenges
posed by big data. This theme will be returned to in week 10.
Seminar Questions:
1. What is ‘big data’? How new is it?
2. Why have some argued that ‘big data’ might lead to the end of
theory?
3. Is there more to ‘big data’ than social media?
4. Discuss one of the six provocations offered by boyd and Crawford
Essential Reading:
Anderson, C. (2008). The end of theory. Wired magazine. Available at
http://archive.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/16-07/pb_theory
Crawford, K. , & boyd, d. (2011). Six provocations for big data. Available at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=1926431
Further Reading:
Bastow, S., Dunleavy, P., & Tinkler, J. (2014). The impact of the social
sciences: how academics and their research make a difference. Sage.
Beer, D., & Burrows, R. (2007). Sociology and, of and in Web 2.0: Some
initial considerations. Sociological Research Online, 12(5), 17.
Burrows, R., & Savage, M. (2014). After the crisis? Big Data and the
methodological challenges of empirical sociology. Big Data & Society, 1(1),
18
Couldry, N. (2014). A necessary disenchantment: myth, agency and injustice
in a digital world. The Sociological Review.
Couldry, N., & Powell, A. (2014). Big Data from the bottom up. Big Data &
Society, 1(2).
Daniels, J., & Feagin, J. (2011). The (coming) social media revolution in the
academy. Fast Capitalism, 8(2).
Gerbaudo, P. (2012). Tweets and the streets: Social media and contemporary
activism. Pluto Press.
Tinati, R., Halford, S., Carr, L., & Pope, C. (2014). Big data:
methodological challenges and approaches for sociological analysis.
Sociology, 48(4):663681
Lupton, D. (2012). Digital Sociology: An Introduction.
Madianou, M., & Miller, D. (2013). Polymedia: Towards a new theory of
digital media in interpersonal communication. International Journal of
Cultural Studies,16(2), 169-187.
Miller, D. (2011). Tales from facebook. Polity.
Miller, D., & Sinanan, J. (2014). Webcam. John Wiley & Sons.
Murthy, D. (2008). Digital ethnography an examination of the use of new
technologies for social research. Sociology, 42(5), 837-855.
Murthy, D. (2013). Twitter: Social communication in the Twitter age.
John Wiley & Sons.
Orton-Johnson, K., & Prior, N. (Eds.). (2013). Digital sociology: critical
perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan.
Ruppert, E., Law, J., & Savage, M. (2013). Reassembling social science
methods: the challenge of digital devices. Theory, culture & society,
30(4), 22-46.
Uprichard, E. (2013). Focus: Big Data, Little Questions? Discover Society, 1.
19
Week 8: The Mobilities Turn
In the mid- to late-1990s, debates about the modern and postmodern faded
and the social sciences became more concerned with the study of social
space, and in particular with processes of globalization. John Urry was a key
figure in this transition as he argued that the social sciences needed to
address the global movements or mobilities of people, capital, objects, signs
and information, rather than retain its traditional focus on societies bounded
by nation-states. To do so, Urry argues, social sciences needed new,
‘mobile’ methods that could capture the complexities of the globalized
world. In this session, we will assess the strengths and weaknesses of Urry’s
approach in order to think more generally about the challenges of studying
social relations or phenomena that, increasingly, are fast-moving and cannot
be understood within any single national context.
Seminar Questions:
1. Urry argues that social science should be focussed on the study of
movement rather on static and/or bounded social forms. Is he right?
2. Do you agree that social science should move beyond the idea
of ‘society’?
3. What are the challenges to be faced in formulating and using mobile
methods? Give some examples relating to your own research interests.
Essential Reading:
Urry, John 2007. ‘“Mobile” Theories and Methods’ in Mobilities.
Cambridge: Polity.
Further Reading:
Urry, John 2000. ‘Societies’ in Sociology Beyond Societies: Mobilities for
the Twenty-First
Century. London: Routledge. Urry, John 2002. Global Complexity.
Cambridge: Polity.
Urry, John and Gane, Nicholas 2004. ‘Complex Mobilities’ in Gane,
Nicholas The Future of Social Theory. London: Continuum.
20
Sheller M, Urry J, 2006, ‘The New Mobilities Paradigm’. Environment and
Planning A, 38, 2, pp.207 – 226
Büscher, Monika, Urry, John and Witchger, Katian (eds.) 2010. Mobile
Methods. London:Routledge.
Elliot, Anthony and Urry, John 2010. Mobile Lives. London: Routledge.
Adey, Peter 2010. Mobility. London: Routledge.
Bauman, Zygmunt 1998. Globalization: The Human Consequences.
Cambridge: Polity.
21
Week 9: Social Science in Crisis
In 2007, Mike Savage and Roger Burrows declared that sociology was
facing a potential crisis, for the monopoly that the discipline once exercised
over the methods of social science research had long disappeared. In their
view, sociology no longer exercised a disciplinary control over the territory
of ‘the social’ and, perhaps more importantly, commercial (and to some
extent governmental) agencies now possessed research techniques and
research budgets that far exceeded anything that can be found within the
academy. In this session, we will assess these arguments along with that
criticisms that were made in return by figures such as Rosemary Crompton.
We will ask if social science is indeed facing an empirical crisis, and if so
what might be done in response.
Seminar Questions:
1.What, exactly, is a crisis? Is a crisis also an opportunity?
2.Is it true that many of methodological tasks once performed by the social
sciences are now performed better by commercial agencies situated
outside of the academy? Can there be such a thing as commercial
social science?
3.What answers might we provide to the problems outlined by Savage and
Burrows?
Essential Reading:
Savage, Mike and Burrows, Roger 2007. ‘The Coming Crisis of Empirical
Sociology’. Sociology,41, 5, pp.885-99.
Further Reading:
Holmwood, John 2010. ‘Sociology’s Misfortune: Disciplinarity,
Interdisciplinarity and theImpact of Audit Culture’. The British Journal of
Sociology. 61, 4, pp.639-658
Holmwood, John and Scott, Scott 2007. ‘Editorial Foreword: Sociology and
its Public Face(s)’.Sociology, 41, 5, pp.779-783.
Crompton, Rosemary 2008. ’Forty Years of Sociology’. Sociology, 42, 6,
pp.1218-27. Webber, Richard 2009. ‘Response to “The Coming Crisis of
22
Empirical Sociology”: An Outline of the Research Potential of
Administrative and Transactional Data’. Sociology, 43, 1,pp.169–78.
Savage, Mike and Burrows, Roger 2009. ‘Some Further Reflections on the
Coming Crisis of Empirical Sociology’. Sociology, 43, 4, pp.762-772.
Gane, Nicholas 2011. ‘Measure, Value and the Current Crises of Sociology’,
Sociological Review, 58, s2, December, pp.151-73.
Burrows, Roger and Gane, Nicholas 2006. ‘Geodemographics, Software and
Class’, Sociology, 40, 5, pp.793-812
Thrift, Nigel 2005. Knowing Capitalism. London: Sage.
23
Week 10: Computational Social Science
One increasingly influential response to the challenge of Big Data is
represented by Computational Social Science (CSS). Drawing on
computational mathematics and influenced by techniques more frequently
deployed in Physics, CSS seeks to maximise the uptake of the opportunities
presented by digital data. These sophisticated techniques facilitate forms of
engagement with digital data that are beyond the traditional methodological
repertoires of the social sciences. CSS is emphatically naturalistic in a way
that newly emphasises important questions that we considered at the start of
the module. Following a discussion of the kinds of research questions
addressed by CSS, the session turns to the question of who is undertaking
CSS and where they are doing this. We consider a few recent controversies
surrounding corporate data science (e.g. Facebook, OkCupid) and use this as
a basis to consider the long term implications of these trends for the social
sciences as a whole.
Seminar Questions:
1. What sort of questions can CSS address which the social
sciences might not previously have been able to?
2. What sorts of things might CSS struggle to identify and explain?
3. What are ethical questions posed by the proliferation of
corporate CSS?
Essential Reading:
Conte, R., Gilbert, N., Bonelli, G., Cioffi-Revilla, C., Deffuant, G., Kertesz,
J., ... & Helbing, D. (2012). Manifesto of computational social science. The
European Physical Journal Special Topics, 214(1), 325-346.
Further Reading:
Blok, A., & Pedersen, M. A. (2014). Complementary social science? Qualiquantitative experiments in a Big Data world. Big Data & Society, 1(2),
Cioffi-Revilla, C. (2010). Computational social science. Wiley
Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, 2(3), 259-271.
24
Kitchin, R. (2013). Big data and human geography Opportunities, challenges
and risks. Dialogues in Human Geography, 3(3), 262-267.
Kitchin, R. (2014). Big Data, new epistemologies and paradigm shifts. Big
Data & Society, 1(1), 2053951714528481.
Kitchin, R., & Lauriault, T. P. (2014). Small Data, Data Infrastructures and
Big Data. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2376148
Kitchin, R., & Lauriault, T. P. (2014). Towards Critical Data Studies:
Charting and Unpacking Data Assemblages and Their Work.
Lazer, D., Pentland, A. S., Adamic, L., Aral, S., Barabasi, A. L., Brewer, D.,
... & Van Alstyne, M. (2009). Life in the network: the coming age of
computational social science. Science (New York, NY).
Lyon, D. (2014). Surveillance, Snowden, and Big Data: Capacities,
consequences, critique. Big Data & Society, 1(2).
Raghavan, P. (2014). It’s time to scale the science in the social sciences. Big
Data & Society, 1(1)
Oboler, A., Welsh, K., & Cruz, L. (2012). The danger of big data: Social
media as computational social science. First Monday, 17(7).
Ruppert, E. (2013). Rethinking empirical social sciences. Dialogues in
Human Geography, 3(3), 268-273.
25