The proliferation of digital technologies and augmented social relations offer great potential for the vocation of sociology. Although the greatest interest in the digital turn has centered on sources of data, digitality also provides many excellent methodological benefits as well as new and evolving subjects of analysis. This paper seeks to make the case for a more digitally-attuned sociology, and to forge a path in that direction. To accomplish this task, I begin with a brief history of digital sociology — in the U.S. and beyond — as well as a survey of other, related approaches that have gained greater traction in the field. Next, I examine the state of social life in the digitally networked era and make the case for sociology’s need to update its epistemological orientation to put an end to fetishisms of technology and the "real world." Finally, I outline an agenda for the future of digital sociology along with some suggestions for how it might be accomplished.
Full paper available here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2569223
Understanding Discord NSFW Servers A Guide for Responsible Users.pdf
CAN YOU DIGIT? DIGITAL SOCIOLOGY’S VOCATIONAL PROMISE -- ESS 2015
1. CAN YOU DIGIT? DIGITAL
SOCIOLOGY’S VOCATIONAL
PROMISE
Stephen Barnard
St. Lawrence University
@socsavvy
2. Guiding Insights
“In the final analysis, the
problems that we
identify and resolve
through technological
innovation will always
be essentially human
concerns which
engender
characteristically human
solutions. Much the
same can be said for the
practice of sociology.”
-Adrian Athique 2013: 263
Stephen Barnard | @socsavvy | St. Lawrence UniversityImage Credit
“media do not simply add
a new element to the
story, they transform it”
-Livingstone 2009:8)
3. Goals of the paper…
To make the case for a more digitally-attuned
sociology, and to forge a path in that direction.
Here’s how:
1. I begin with a brief history of digital sociology—in the U.S.
and beyond—as well as a survey of other, related
approaches that have gained greater traction in the
field.”
2. I examine the state of social life in the digitally networked
era and make the case for sociology’s need to update its
epistemological orientation to put an end to fetishisms of
technology and the “real world.
3. I outline an agenda for the future of digital sociology
along with some suggestions for how it might be
accomplished.
Stephen Barnard | @socsavvy | St. Lawrence University
4. When I started grad school, I
dreamt of a true commitment to
(Digital) Media Sociology…
Part my concern was with
traditional media
And the other part was with
citizenship and digital media
Image: Associated Press Image: Associated Press
Stephen Barnard | @socsavvy | St. Lawrence University
5. By time I left grad school,
networked classrooms looked
like this
Stephen Barnard | @socsavvy | St. Lawrence University
Image credit: Chris Corwin
6. On the wrong side of our own
‘digital divide’
Digital Humanities has really
taken off…
While the potential for sociology
is still right at our fingertips…
Image credit
Image credit
Stephen Barnard | @socsavvy | St. Lawrence University
7. “Digital Humanities” has
really taken off
Stephen Barnard | @socsavvy | St. Lawrence University
Figure 1: Google Ngram of book references to “digital humanities”
8. Digital Sociology is behind,
but showing promise
Especially in the U.S.
Only 2 references to “digital sociology” in the Social Science
Citation Index
Still, there is a lot of good, digitally-attuned sociology
digital inequality and literacy
(Hargittai, 2010; Hughey and Daniels, 2013; Schradie 2011),
digital culture and interaction
(Boyd, 2014; Marwick, 2012;Trottier 2013, Papacharissi 2010),
networked society and social movements
(Castells, 2013; Rainie andWellman, 2012; Earl and Kimport, 2011),
medical sociology and the quantified self (Lupton, 2014),
political sociology (Kriess, 2014),
media sociology, etc.
(Benson et al., 2012; Gillespie et al., 2014; Waisbord 2014)
Stephen Barnard | @socsavvy | St. Lawrence University
9. Lessons from the Digital
Humanities
DH is inclusive and interdisciplinary
Still, dialectics of inclusion and exclusion exist
…and they are destructive and distracting
Beware of buzzwords, determinism, and
fetishism
DH is primarily a methodological intervention
But, digital interventions have also opened up
entire new issues for the humanities, as they
have for sociology
Stephen Barnard | @socsavvy | St. Lawrence University
10. Two types of Digitality for
Sociology
Digital Scholarship Scholarship of the Digital
scholarly work that leverages
digital tools in the process of
academic inquiry.
data collection
content from social media platforms or
other web sites
online surveys
other forms of digital data, however
“big”
methods
social network analysis
digital ethnography
collaborative coding
publication outlets
blogs
social media platforms
paper sharing sites
open-access publications
the explicit consideration
and analysis of issues
arising from the
proliferation of digital
technologies.
In and around sociology,
there is work on internet
studies, digital inequality,
augmented reality, media
logic, and
mediation/mediatization,
among many others
Stephen Barnard | @socsavvy | St. Lawrence University
11. The Reality of Digitality
We live in a Networked
Society
Castells 2009; Rainie
andWellman 2012
Social relations are
“augmented” by
technology usage
Jurgenson 2012;
Coleman 2011
Stephen Barnard | @socsavvy | St. Lawrence University
12. A Tale of Two Fetishisms
Technology Fetishism Fetishism of the “Real Life”
Fetishism
“the habit humans have of
endowing real or imagined objects
or entities with self-contained,
mysterious, and even magical
powers to move and shape the
world in distinctive ways” (Harvey,
2003)
Characteristics:
Utopian celebration;Technological
determinism; ignorant of political-
economy
Sites of struggle
Big Data
It’s great, but relying on pre-
selected, structured data has costs
Jurgenson’s Lexicon and the
“IRL fetish”
resists changes in culture and
technology by fetishizing that
which is the apparent antithesis of
technology, human sociality, and
by constructing a dualistic view of
reality, digital versus physical
(Jurgenson 2012)
Characteristics:
Utopian celebration of f2f;Vintage
nostalgia; separation fallacy;
Sites of Struggle
Digital Dualism vs. Augmented
Reality
Atoms and Bits
Stephen Barnard | @socsavvy | St. Lawrence University
13. Waking up to the Digital
World
DS is more than just
“Add digital data and stir”
It will take shifts in ontology and
epistemology, theory and method,
research questions and data
collection, etc.
If we are not of and with
members of society, then
we can hardly expect to
characterize them fairly or
accurately in our research
(Gans, 2014; cf. Barnard
andVan Gerven, 2009)
Stephen Barnard | @socsavvy | St. Lawrence UniversityImage Credit
14. Four issues DS must address
1) Update our analytical orientation
Ontologies, epistemologies, methodologies
Better account for the networked world
2) Keep structure and agency in balance
Resist deterministic and fetishistic frames
Leveraged affordances (Earl and Kimport, 2012) and mutual shaping
(Trottier 2013) are steps in the right direction
3) Preserve meaning and thick description in the age of big data
Strive to maintain context; don’t forget the hard, interpretive work
Consider observational biases, interests and power relations
4) Broaden our definitions…of teaching, scholarship, service, and
even sociology
We live in a complex, hybrid world
Our practices should be more…practical
Stephen Barnard | @socsavvy | St. Lawrence University
15. In every great challenge
lies great opportunity
The hybridity of fields and practices in the networked era
presents a valuable opportunity to reevaluate sociology’s
vocational promise.
While sociology has historically been attuned to viewing the
world as a commingling of agents and interactions with/in
institutional contexts, it is also possible for sociological
approaches to recognize the emergence of a digital,
hypermediated superstructure that augments traditional social
relations.
Just as actors in other fields have developed networked practices and
dispositions to suit changes to the media environment (Barnard
forthcoming; Papacharissi and Easton 2013), sociologists can (and
should) adapt to living and researching in a networked society.
A critical mass of society’s members (including many sociologists)
belong to the networked public. We should listen to the members and
start giving digital developments the attention they deserve.
Stephen Barnard | @socsavvy | St. Lawrence University
16. Closing remarks: we must
attend to the digital world
After all, other disciplines are
like
While a majority of sociologists still
have our heads buried in the sand
Stephen Barnard | @socsavvy | St. Lawrence University
Image credit
Image credit
17. Stephen Barnard | @socsavvy | St. Lawrence University
THANK YOU…
I look forward to comments
and questions
Notas del editor
But first, I want to explain why I think this is so important.
Morehouse College in Atlanta -- Umbrella Revolution in Hong Kong
But, some disciplines are more open to the network than others.
Now, allow me to be more specific…
These two types of digitality are non-mutually exclusive, and both have a place in the past, present, and future of DS. Nevertheless, digital sociology has thus far placed much greater emphasis on digital scholarship than on scholarship of the digital. We are in need of a reconsideration of our framework to better account for the breadth of sociological implications stemming from life in a digital age. This call does not mean we must abandon core sociological theories, methods, and lines of inquiry. It only requires that we broaden our focus to be more mindful of the complex reality of digitality.
While such a line of inquiry is important, we cannot only study commodity fetishism. Likewise, the complex reality of increased digitality cannot be simply reduced to a single, political-economic base. Hence, while Marxists, critical theorists, and others should continue to study the political-economy of digital technologies, others must also continue to examine the plethora of other contexts and consequences of a reality increasingly augmented by digital technologies.
Although this structural basis of digitality is undeniably embedded in the dialectic of modern capitalism, the resultant plane of augmentation has reached synthesis with everyday forms of social life. This creates a level of networked reality that is likewise nearly totalizing in its significance to modern social relations (Harvey, 2003; Jurgenson 2012a). The challenge, then, is to strike a balance that avoids the pitfalls of both extremes.
Like it or not, digital technologies are here to stay. More importantly, the trend toward a digitally augmented reality is only just beginning, and the divide between f2f and computer-mediated relations is blurrier than ever before (Jurgenson 2012; Davis 2014). Given the degree of this shift, I argue that digital sociology must be more digitally-attuned, publicly connected, and socially impactful. But in order to be more digitally-attuned, we must first be more digital.
--
we must take care to open, connect, and synthesize our methodologies rather than approaching DS with an “add digital data and stir” mindset. Thus, it is not just that our methodological tools should inform our sociological orientation, but also that the changes in our social world should drive us to pose new questions and to cultivate innovative methodologies that allow us to better understand our unfolding realities. Overall, the vocational promise of digital sociology is not simply to add shiny new polish on top of the discipline’s well-worn lenses. Rather, the future of sociology will be best served by approaches that combine digital scholarship with scholarship of the digital.
If sociology is to remain valid and legitimate, both as a science and a vocation, we must reconsider and reinvest in the realm of the digital.