FinalVersionofanArticleForthcominginaSpecialIssueoftheJournalSociologyon SociologyanditsPublicFace(s),2007. TheComingCrisisofEmpiricalSociology MikeSavageandRogerBurrows ContactDetails ProfessorMikeSavage ESRCCentreforResearchonSocioCulturalChange(CRESC) 178WaterlooPlace TheUniversityofManchester OxfordRoad ManchesterM139PL UK tel:+44(0)1612758987 email:mike.savage@manchester.ac.

ster.ac.uk ProfessorRogerBurrows SocialInformaticsResearchUnit(SIRU) DepartmentofSociology UniversityofYork Heslington YorkYO105DD UK Tel;+44(0)1904433048 email:rjb7@york.ac.uk

Bios MikeSavageisProfessorofSociologyattheUniversityofManchesterwhereheis DirectoroftheESRCCentreforResearchonSocioCulturalChange(CRESC).Hehas writtenwidelyonsocialstratification,urbansociology,andhistoricalchange,andis currentlycompletingabookexploringtheculturalandpoliticalhistoryofthesocial sciencesinpostwarBritain.HisrecentpublicationsincludeGlobalisationandBelonging (withGaynorBagnallandBrianLonghurst,Sage2005)andRethinkingClass:Culture, IdentitiesandLifestyles(editedwithFionaDevine,RosemaryCromptonandJohnScott, Palgrave2004). RogerBurrowsisProfessorofSociologyattheUniversityofYorkwhereheisalsothe CoDirectoroftheSocialInformaticsResearchUnit(SIRU).Heisalsothecoordinatorof theESRCeSocietyresearchprogramme.Hehaswrittenwidelyonurbanandhousing studies,thesociologyofhealthandillness,andsocialinformatics.Hisarticle Geodemographics,SoftwareandClass,coauthoredwithNicholasGaneandpublished inthisjournallastyear(Sociology,40,5,793812,2006)wonthe2007SagePrizefor Innovationand/orExcellence.

 Abstract Thispaperarguesthatinanageofknowingcapitalism,sociologistshavenotadequately thoughtaboutthechallengesposedtotheirexpertisebytheproliferationofsocial transactionaldatawhicharenowroutinelycollected,processedandanalysedbyawide varietyofprivateandpublicinstitutions.DrawingonBritishexamples,wearguethat whereasoverthepast40yearssociologistschampionedinnovativemethodological resources,notablythesamplesurveyandtheindepthinterviews,thatreasonably allowedthemtoclaimdistinctiveexpertisetoaccessthesocialinpowerfulways,such claimsarenowmuchlesssecure.Wearguethatboththesamplesurveyandtheindepth interviewareincreasinglydatedresearchmethodswhichareunlikelytoprovidea robustbaseforthejurisdictionofempiricalsociologistsincomingdecades.Weconclude byspeculatinghowsociologymightrespondtothiscomingcrisisthroughtakingup newinterestsinthepoliticsofmethod. Keywords Historyofsociologicalmethodologies/surveymethods/indepthinterviews/politics ofmethod/transactionaldata/geodemographics/descriptivesociology

Introduction Inthispaperwesuggestthatsociologyfacesacomingcrisis,whichhasnotyetbeen sufficientlyappreciatedorunderstood.Althoughmuchhasbeenwrittenabout theoreticalworriesconcerningthestatusofthesocialinanagemarkedbyglobalising, mobileanddynamicrelations,wheresocial,technologicalandnaturalprocesses intersectandhybridiseprofusely(Gane,2004),thisisnotwhatprimarilyconcernsus here.Rather,ourfocusisonthechangingsignificanceofempiricalresearchandtheclaims tojurisdictionthatsociologistscanmakearoundtheirmethodologicalrepertoires.Our concernisthatintheyearsbetweenabout1950and1990sociologistscouldclaimaseries ofdistinctivemethodologicaltoolsthatallowedthemtoclaimclearpointsofaccessto socialrelations,intheearlytwentyfirstcenturysocialdataisnowsoroutinelygathered anddisseminated,andinsuchmyriadways,thattheroleofsociologistsingenerating dataisnowunclear.Fiftyyearsago,academicsocialscientistsmightbeseenas occupyingtheapexofthegenerallylimitedsocialscienceresearchapparatus.Now theyoccupyanincreasinglymarginalpositioninthehugeresearchinfrastructurethat formsanintegralfeatureofwhatThrift(2005)characterisesasknowingcapitalism;where circuitsofinformationproliferateandareembeddedinnumerouskindsofinformation technologies.Inanerawherecapitalismhasbeguntoconsideritsownpracticesona continuousbasistouseitsfearofuncertaintyasaresourcetocirculatenewideasof theworldasiftheywereitsowntomakebusinessoutof,thinkingtheeveryday (Thrift,2005:1)whatistheroleoftheempiricalsociologist?Tousetheargotofcurrently fashionableactornetworktheory(Latour,2005),isacademicsociologybecominglessof anobligatorypointofpassageforvastswathesofpowerfulagents?Andifso,howcan thedisciplinebestrespondtothischallenge? SomeIntimationsofaComingCrisis Oursenseofthisimpendingcrisishascreptupuponusaswehavegoneaboutour workinrecentyears.ForSavageanearlysignwasin2004whenheattendedtheESRC ResearchMethodsfestival.WithcolleaguesGindoTampubolonandAlanWardehewas enrolledinasessiondesignedtopopularisesocialnetworkmethods.Hetalkedaboutan ESRCfundedresearchprojectwhichmappedthepersonalconnectionsandtiesof membersofthreevoluntaryorganisationsusingsocialnetworkanalysis.Theprojecthad provedtimeconsumingandintensive.Alotoftimehadbeenspentfindingthree organisationspreparedtoparticipate,apostalquestionnairehadbeensentto320 membersintotal,withaveryhighresponserate.Manymembershadbeeninterviewed facetofacetoaskdetailedquestionsabouttheirsocialnetworks.Thirtylifehistories hadbeenconducted.Theresultingintensivestudyofthememberssocialtieswas amongstthemostdetailedevercarriedoutintheUK(seeRayetal.,2003;Wardeetal., 2005).DuringtheFestivalhetalkedtootherparticipantsinterestedinsocialnetwork methods.Itturnedoutthatoneenthusiastwasnotanacademicbutworkedina researchunitattachedtoaleadingtelecommunicationscompany.Whenaskedwhat

dataheusedforhissocialnetworkstudies,heshylyrepliedthathehadtheentire recordsofeveryphonecallmadeonhissystemoverseveralyears,amountingtoseveral billionties.Thisisdatawhichdwarvesanythingthatanacademicsocialscientistcould garner.Crucially,itwasdatathatdidnotrequireaspecialefforttocollect,butwasthe digitalbyproductoftheroutineoperationsofalargecapitalistinstitution.Itisalso privatedatatowhichmostacademicshavenoaccess.Tobesure,wecancavilaboutits limits.Itdoesnottelluswhatthecallersactuallytalkedabout.Wecanemphasiseour superiorreflexivity,theoreticalsophistication,orcriticaledge.Fairenoughuptoa point.Yet,thedangeristhatthisresponseinvolvestakingrefugeinthereassuranceof ourowninternalworld,ourownassumedabilitiestobemoresophisticated,and therebywechosetoignorethehugeswathesofsocialdatathatnowproliferate. ForBurrowstherealisationofthecomingcrisisoccurredin2005.Hewascarryingout fieldworkwithinarangeofsiteswheretheanalysisofsuchswathesofsocialdatais bigbusinessthegeodemographicsindustry(6,2005).Itsoonbecameapparentwithin thecontextofinterviewswiththedesignersofsuchsystemsthattheynotonlyhad routineaccesstomyriadsourcesofcommercialsocialtransactionaldata(Evans,2005) butthattheysuccessfullymergedthiswithpublicdatasourcessuchastheCensus, ElectoralRolls,theLandRegistryandsooninordertoproducehighlysophisticated sociospatialmapsatalevelofdetailandgranularityhithertonotpossiblewithinthe academyandwithouthavingtoconsidermanyoftheethicalconstraintswhich conditiontheworkofacademicresearchers.Notonlythat,buttheywereusingthe rhetoricofsociologicaldiscourse(idealtypes,weltanschauung,habitus,urban factorialecology,globalisationandsoon)asaanalyticjustificationfortheirpractices (BurrowsandGane,2006).Inessenceaparallelandlargelyunknown(toacademic sociologists)worldofcommercialsociologywasbeingrevealedthatcertainlydidnot seemtolacksophistication. Thecrisisthoughdoesnotjustmanifestitselfatthelevelofdatacollectionandanalysis; thereisalsothequestionoftheuseanddisseminationofresearchinformation.This realisationhasrecentlystruckSavageinhisroleastheDirectoroftheESRCCentrefor ResearchonSocioCulturalChange(CRESC).Partofthepitchforfundingwasthatthe researchcapacityoftheculturalsectorwaslimited,anddidnotengagewiththe methodsandideasdevelopedintheacademy.WiththisinmindoneoftheCentre researchers,DrAndrewMiles,coordinatedanoutreachprojectexaminingtheresearch needsandissuesofthoseworkinginthesector(seewww.cresc.ac.uk).Itsoonbecame apparentthatitwouldbewrongtoadoptadeficitmodelwhereitisassumedthat thereisnoresearchtakingplaceinthesesectorsandthatacademicsneedtoprovidea servicewhichisotherwisemissing.Indeed,farfromit.Thereisplentyofresearchtaking placeintheculturalsector,butitdoesnotdependverymuchonacademicintervention. Culturalinstitutionshaveimpressivedatabases,mailinglists,researchprojectsand interventions.Theyhavearangeofrulesofthumb,modelsandpracticeswhichare informedbyextensiveresearchcoordinatedbyconsultantsandpartnersaswellasin

house.Forthemostpart,thekindofacademicresearchcarriedoutinthenameof cultureislargelyirrelevant.TheideasofBourdieuandFoucault,indeedalltheglorious flourishesoftheculturalturn,donotwithafewexceptionsspeaktotheworkaday needsandinterestsofsuchinstitutions.Onceagain,insuchasituationitwouldalsobe possibletobepreciousandcondescendingtothosewhoworkinthesector,andbemoan theirlimitedawareness,theirinstrumentalism,andsoforth.However,ourmainpointis thatfromtheirperspective,theresearchtheydogenerallymeetstheirneeds:itis productiveandiseffectiveinitsownterms. Historicalcomparisons Theseanecdotesspeaktothefactthatintheearlytwentyfirstcentury,theresearchof academicsociologistsappearssomewhatperipheraltothemultifariousresearchcircuits whichareimplicatedintheconstitutionofaknowingcapitalism.Thisisanovelsituation. Gibbonsetals(1994)accountoftheriseofMode2knowledgeoverMode1 knowledgenotestheriseoftransdisciplinaryandappliedknowledgeoverinternally validatedacademicknowledge.Bauman(1988)hasilluminatinglyexploredthedecline oflegislativeknowledgeinanewcultureofcapitalistconsumerism.Yetboththese positaworldwheretherewasatleastsomedeferencetotheinternalauthorityof academicexpertise.Infact,wewouldargue,followingAbbotts(1990)insistenceofthe waythatprofessionalexpertiseisconstitutedbyitspracticalabilitiestodiagnose;itwas thepracticaldevicesthatsocialscientistsdevelopedthatcommandedinterest.Fromthe pioneeringexampleoftheirroleinthesocialsurveyandcommunitystudies(seeBulmer etal.,1991;OsborneandRose,2004),academicsociologistswerehighlyinnovativein conductingappliedresearchandpersuadingarangeofinstitutionsoftheeffectiveness oftheirresearchrepertoires.Weneedtoremindourselvesthatfortyorsoyearsago,in theabsenceofroutinedatagatheringandanalysisconductedbyinstitutionsthemselves, academicsociologistswereremarkablemethodologicalinnovators(Seemoregenerally Rose(1990)andOsborneandRose(1999).WhenNewSocietywaslaunchedin1962with itsmessianicconcerntodemonstratetheimportanceofsocialresearch,itpioneeredthe practiceofsendingoutaquestionnairetoallitsreaders,wasdelugedbyresponses,and reportedtheresultsinitspages(NewSociety,7 thMarch,9thMay1963).Suchuser questionnairesarenowsoroutinelyimplicatedinourdailyencountersthatweoften forgetthatitwassocialscientistswhoinventedthistechnologyjustfourdecadesago. WearetoldthattheresultsofthisNewSocietyquestionnairewerediscussedbythe (Conservative)cabinet,sointerestingandinnovativewastheideaofgettingyour readerstovolunteertheirownthoughts:cabinetministers,includingEnochPowell, werecertainlyhappytocontributecolumnsandreviewstoNewSocietyinitsearlyyears. WhenGoldthorpeandLockwood(1963)wroteaspeculativearticleaboutthe implicationsofaffluencefortheworkingclassinSociologicalReview,theywere summonedtotheDepartmentofScienceandIndustrialResearchandgivenalarge researchgrantonthespotnopeerreviewingrequiredtofundthemtocarryouta survey,whichledtothemostcelebratedsociologicalstudyevercarriedoutinBritain

(Goldthorpeetal.,1968/69).WhenFrankenbergconductedthefirstsustained ethnographicstudyontheBritishmainland(VillageontheBorder,1957),hisworkwas featuredinallthenationalmediaandhebecamea(minor)celebrity.Theanthropologist, LuptonbecamethefirstDirectoroftheManchesterBusinessSchoolbecauseofhis pioneeringuseofethnographicmethodstounderstandshopfloorworkingrelations (Lupton,1963).Andsoonandsoforth.In1963,whentheSundayTimespublisheda coloursupplement,thefirstcolourmagazinetobepublishedintheUK,NewSocietysaw itasanincursionintoitsownjurisdiction,andrevieweditinpatronisingstyle,praising aspectsofitsattempttowriteaccessiblefeaturesonsocialissues(NewSociety,14 thFeb 1963)butmakingitclearthatNewSocietywasalongwayaheadinpromoting accessiblesocialcommentary.Whichacademicsocialscientisttoday,gazingattheacres ofshelfspacedevotedtocolourmagazines,wouldfeelabletospeakwithsuchanairof superiority?AndNewSociety,ofcourse,isnowheretobeseen. Itisnot,therefore,thatinthepast,therewasunthinkingdeferencetoacademic authority(forotherexamples,seeDirks(1999)onanthropologiesroleinIndiancolonial governmentorMitchell(2002)ontheroleofthesocialsciencesinconstitutingthe Egyptianeconomyduringthe20thcentury).Itwasratherthatthatsuchsocialscientists inventedandsupportedresearchtechnologieswhichallowedaccesstothesocialin wayswhicharangeofinterestgroupsfoundvaluable.Thisisthesocialroleof sociology,notintermsofitsideasortheoreticalschools,orthestatureofitsleading spokespeople,butintermsoftheimportanceofitsempiricalresearchtechnologies. SomeManifestationsoftheCrisis QuantitativeMethods Someinfluentialcommentators(Goldthorpe,2000;Halsey,2004)seethesamplesurvey asthecoremethodologicalresourceofsociology,itsgreatandenduringcontributionto thescientificstudyofsociety.Thesamplesurvey,itisclaimed,andsowetellour students,allowsustogeneraliseandpredictthroughrevealingenduringregularitiesby theuseofinferentialstatistics.Throughinferencewecanbeconfidentthat questionnairesonalimitednumberofpeoplehavemoregeneralresonanceandcan formthebasisofscientificsociology.Now,thereisnoquestionthatthenationalsample surveywasaremarkableinnovationatitsinception.Ratherthanrelyingonadecennial censusofeveryhousehold,hugelyexpensiveandtimeconsuming,socialtrendscould beassessedonthebasisofmoreparsimoniousmethods.Smallscale,local,sampling beganintheUKintheearlytwentiethcentury,andnationalsamplesurveysbeganin the1930s(intheformofopinionpolling,onwhichseeOsborneandRose(1999)).The GovernmentSocialSurveywasinauguratedduringtheSecondWorldWar,andthepost waryearssawthedramaticexpansionofnationalsamplesurveys,withacademicsocial scientistsplayingakeyroleintheirpropagationanddevelopment.Thecreationofkey governmentaltechnologies,suchastheofficialinflationrate,cametodependon

surveyresearch(inthiscase,basedontheFamilyExpenditureSurvey).Sucha momentumcontinuedwellintothe1980s,inlargepartinformedbytheadvocacyby SaraArber,AngelaDaleandothersintheSurreySchoolforsecondaryanalysis (Arberetal.,1988)andthegenesisoftheBritishHouseholdPanelStudy(BHPS)in1991 whichallowedsamplesurveystobeusedfortheanalysisoflongitudinalchange. However,thesamplesurveyisnotatoolthatstandsoutsidehistory.Itsgloryyears,we contend,areinthepast.Onedifficultyisthatinanintenselyresearchedenvironment, responserateshavebeensteadilyfalling,anditisprovingmoredifficulttoobtain responseratesof80percentormorewhichwereoncethoughtnormal.Peoplenolonger treatitasanhonourtobeaskedtheiropinion,butinsteadseeitasanuisance,oreven anintrusion.Theseproblemsare,however,notoverwhelmingbecausesurvey statisticianshavedevelopedmethodsforestimatingtheattributesofthemissing,andit stillremainspossibletogeneraliseonthebasisofbiasedsamples.Asecondproblem concernsthewaythatsurveysrelyfortheirsamplingframe,ontheemptyhomogeneous spacedefinedbynationalboundaries.Thesurveyemergedasakeydevicefor imaginingthenation,andinaglobaleraofmassmigration,thisalsomarksaserious limit.Eventhemostambitiouscomparativeresearchreliesoncomparingdiscrete nationalsamples(forinstanceInglehartandWelzel(2005)).Athirdtellingissueisthe proliferationofsurveyresearchinprivatecompanies,especiallyinareasofmarket research.Suchsurveyresearchnowhasverylimitedreferencetoacademicexpertise. Unlikepublicsurveyswhichformthebedrockofacademicstatisticalexpertise,thefact thattheirdataiscommodifiediscentralbothtotheirmarketandtheirpurposes.Oneof themostimportantofsuchsurveysistheBritishMarketResearchBureau(BMRB) survey,whichhasaverylargesamplesizewhichparallelsthelargestpublicsurveys andasksquestionseverymonth.Yet,theBMRBhashardlybeenusedbyacademic sociologists(foranexception,seeSavageetal(1992)).Thedataisnotsubjecttothekind ofmultivariateanalysispreferredbysocialscientistsbutaredisplayedvisuallythrough formsofclusteranalysis,somakingtheresultsaccessibletoawideaudiencein corporatemarketingdepartments.Veryfewsociodemographicvariablesareused,and classcontinuestobemeasuredthroughlargelydiscredited(bysociologists)market researchcategories.Eventhoughnoselfrespectingacademicsociologistwoulddreamof usingsuchmeasures,andeventhoughtheofficialNationalStatisticsSocioEconomic Classificationhasdevelopedarefinedandelaboratemeansofclassifyingoccupations, thismessageseemslargelyirrelevanttothepowerfulbastionsofmarketresearchers. Tobeclear,ourpointisnottobemoanthelimitedknowledgeorignoranceofmarket researchers,nortoclaimthatacademicsocialscientistsshouldcopytheprivatesectorin somekindofdeferentialway,butrathertopointouthowkeyagentsintheresearch apparatusofcontemporarycapitalistorganisations,nowsimplydontneedthe empiricalexpertiseofquantitativesocialscientistsastheygoabouttheirbusiness.But thispointneedstobepushedfurther.Mostpowerfulinstitutionalagentsnowhave moreeffectiveresearchtoolsthansamplesurveys.Aswehavealreadynoted,theycan

drawonthedigitaldatageneratedroutinelyasabyproductoftheirowntransactions: salesdata,mailinglists,subscriptiondata,andsoforth.Whensamplesurveysbecame popular,fromthe1940s,theymetresistancefromthosewhoinsistedontheneedto researchwholepopulations,usuallyintheformofintensivecasestudies.Theideaof abstractingindividualsfromcontextsandmanipulatingtheirresponsesto questionnairesstatisticallywasanideawhichwasnoteasilyembraced.Aslateasthe early1950s,thehybridmixofanthropologists,surrealistsandsociologistswhoran MassObservationinsistedthattheirmethodsofelicitingnarrativeaccountsof purchasingdecisionswasmorevaluablethantheabstractedaccountsprovidedby surveyresearchers(Hubble,2006).Anthropologistsandpsychologists,strongly influencedbyLewins(e.g.1951)fieldtheorythoughtitessentialtoexplorethe dynamicsandrelationshipsbetweenallthepartiesinspecifiedsocialsettings,andthis conceptioninformedearlysocialnetworkmethods.Lookingback,wecanseehow samplesurveyresearcherswonthisbattlebecausetheywereabletodemonstratethe effectivenessoftheirtechnologytopowerfulstakeholdersinthecontextofthe1950s. And,althoughtheyraisedtheflagofscienceinwinningthisbattle,wemightalsonote thatcosteffectivenesswasontheirside. However,inthecurrentsituation,wheredataonwholepopulationsareroutinely gatheredasabyproductofinstitutionaltransactions,thesamplesurveyseemsavery poorinstrument.Togiveasimpleexampleofthemeritsofroutinetransactionaldata oversurveydata,Amazon.comdoesnotneedtomarketitsbooksbypredictingonthe basisofinferencefromsamplesurveysthesocialpositionofsomeonewhobuysany givenbookandthenofferingthemotherbookstobuywhichtheyknowonthebasisof inferencesimilarpeoplealsotendtobuy.Theyhaveamuchmorepowerfultool.They knowexactlywhatotherbooksareboughtbypeoplemakinganyparticularpurchase, andhencetheycanimmediatelyoffersuchbooksdirectlytootherconsumerswhenthey makethesamepurchase.Hencethe(irritating,thoughoftentellinglyuseful)screens offeringOtherpeoplewhohaveboughtxhavealsoboughtywhichconfrontsthe Amazoncustomer.Similarprinciplesareusedbysupermarketsthroughdatagathered bytheirloyaltycardschemeswheretheycanidentifyforanygivencustomerwithout knowinganythingverymuchabouttheirpersonal,social,characteristicswhatother kindofgoodstheymightbeliabletobuyiftheybuy,forinstance,organicbananas. Theycanhencebypasstheprinciplesofinferencealtogetherandworkdirectlywiththe real,complete,dataderivedfromallthetransactionswithintheirsystem Insofarasthereisonevariablewithinthisnewbodyofworkthatisviewedasessential, itisnotanyoftheusualsociologicalsuspectssocialclass,ethnicity,stageofthelife course,gender,educationalattainmentandsoonrather,itisallofthese(andothers) butasmanifestedthroughresidentiallocation.Fromananalyticpointofviewthis representsaradicalcollapsingoftheseverycommonsociologicalvariablesonto postcodelocations.Theexactmixtureofthesociologicalelementsthatbecomefused togetherineachcategoryofthesesociospatialcompoundsisempiricallydetermined

bythestatisticalpurchaseeachgivesinexplainingsmallscalespatialvariationsin consumptionpatterns(BurrowsandGane,2006).Itturnsoutthatknowledgeofthe spatiallocationofsomeoneisincreasinglyanimportantproxyforallmannerof sociologicalinformation;indeedtotheextentthatthereisnoneedforothersocial measures.RichardWebber,oneofthepioneers,hasconcludedthat thetypeofneighbourhoodinwhichaconsumerlivesisasignificantlymore predictivepieceofinformationthananypersonorhouseholdlevel discriminator(Webber,2004:1). Therearesomearenasinwhichthesamplesurveywillcontinuetobeacentralresearch toolbecauseofthelimitsoftransactionaldata.Onechallengeisposedbythoseoutside thegrid,andsamplesurveysinsomecasesarebetterabletorepresentthemissing, representativepopulation.TheBritishCrimeSurvey,forinstance,isvaluableprecisely becauseitisabletoshowthattherealdatagatheredbythepoliceaspartoftheir auditingprocessunderstatescrimeasexperiencedbyindividuals.However,giventhe problemofnonresponsetosurveys,itisnotclearthattheynecessarilywillcontinueto havesuchadvantages:otherapproachesincludedatacapturemethodswheredatabases arecomparedtoseewhichpopulationsaremissingfromonedatasourcebutappearin anothersothatknowledgeofthosewhomightbemissingfromanyonedatabasecan nonethelessbegarnered(PleaceandBretherton,2006).Itisperhapstellingthatevenin theheartlandofpoliticalarithmeticsociology,thestudyofsocialmobility,therehas beenrecentinterestinusingtransactionaldata(intheformofmarriageregisters,see Miles(1999)),ordatacollectedbygenealogists,oftenusingwebbasedmethods(Prandy andBotero,2000). Letusbeclear:thesamplesurveycontinuestobeanimportantresearchresource, especiallywithrespecttolongitudinalanalysis.However,weneedtorecogniseits historicity,andthewaythatthemorerecenttechnologiesallowdifferent,more descriptivedatatobedeployedinnewandpowerfulways.Thesamplesurveycameto enjoyacertainpreeminenceinasituationwheretheprinciplesofstatisticalinference hadbeendevelopedandthetechnologiesfortheconductofsurveysinventedanddata derivingfromroutinetransactionscouldnotbeeasilycollected,storedand manipulated.Thisstateofaffairsexistedbetweenabout1950and1990,butdecreasingly applies.Itisunlikely,wesuggest,thatinthefuturethesamplesurveywillbea particularlyimportantresearchtool,andthosesociologistswhostaketheexpertiseof theirdisciplinetothismethodmightwanttoreflectonwhetherthismightleavethem exposedtomarginalisationorevenredundancy. QualitativeMethods OurpolemicthusfarmaystrikeareadychordamongstthemajorityofUKsociologists whoarecriticalofquantitativeapproachesandpreferqualitativemethods.However, anycomplacencyhereisverymisplaced.Thesociotechnicalchangesweoutlinedatthe

10

beginningofthispaperalsohaveimplicationsforthoseintheprofessioncommittedto morequalitativestylesofempiricalresearch.Justlikethesurvey,thereisalsoahistory toqualitativemethods.AcomparativelyunusualfeatureofBritishsociologyisits embraceoftheindepthinterviewasitspreferredresearchmethod.Halsey(2004) showsthat80percentofqualitativepaperspublishedintheBritishsociologyjournalsin 2000usedinterviews,aproportionwhichhassteadilyincreasedfromabout50percent intheearly1960s.Noothernationaltraditionofsociologygivestheindepthinterview suchpreeminence.IntheUnitedStates,themajorityofsociologistsanalysesurveydata, buttheminorityofqualitativesociologistspredominantlyconductethnographiesor observationalresearchandsteerclearof(whattheysometimesperceiveas)lightweight interviewmethods.ThoseAmericansociologistswhouseindepthinterviewstendto specialiseinpublicationsforthepopularmarket(e.g.Bellahetal.,1985).When Americansdouseindepthinterviewstheytendtointerviewmanymorepeoplethanis thecaseintheUKoftenbetween100and200orprovideacomparativetwist,for instancebyconductinginterviewsindifferentnations(aswithLamont(1992)who interviewsintheAmericanMidWest,NewYork,andtwoareasofFrance,orBellahetal (1985)whointerviewedinnumerousAmericanneighbourhoods).BycontrasttheBritish useofindepthinterviewstendstobesmallerscaleandfocusedonaparticular(sub) populationofinterest(thoughthereareexceptions,forinstanceDevine(2004)and Savageetal(2005)). Whythisparticular,andunusual,emphasisontheindepthinterviewinBritain?The interview,asmostfamouslydiscussedbyFoucault(1976),originatedasaconfessional technology,withitsremitexpandingfromthechurchconfessionaltolargearenasof professionalpracticeduringtheVictorianperiod.Interviewmethodsthusbecame incorporatedintotheprofessionalpracticeofsocialworkers,bankmanagers,doctors, personnelmanagers(intheirrecruitmentpractices)andpsychologists,andasRose (1990)hasshown,cametoplayanimportantroleinthedefiningthejurisdictionofthe psydisciplines.Formostoftheearlyyearsofthetwentiethcentury,socialresearchers wouldnotnormallyinterviewrespondents,butinsofarastheyconductedempirical researchatallwouldrelyontheopinionsofinfluentialagents,whoseopinionswere takentorepresentthoseofothers.However,althoughitwassociologistswhopioneered theuseofthesemethodsinallowingpopularnarrativestobemadepublic,theroutine useofsuchmethodsinallformsofcontemporaryjournalism,fromthecolourmagazine totheOprahWinfreyshowmarksaclearshiftofexpertiseawayfromtheacademy.The indepthinterviewremainsausefuldeviceforallowingrespondentstoreflectontheir practices,historiesandidentities,bysuspendingsuchpracticesinordertoallowpeople toaccountforthemselves(GilbertandAbell,1983).Yet,whilstitmightbeavaluable resourceforelicitingpeoplesreflexiveidentities(seenotablyBourdieu1999),itisnot clearithassomuchvalueinresearchingthekindsofmyriadmobilities,switches, transactions,andfluiditiesthatareclaimedtomakeupcontemporarysociallife(Urry, 2003).

11

Thekeymechanismbywhichtheinterviewmethodbecameimportedintosociology wasthroughBritishsociologysreactiontoParsonianfunctionalismfromthe1950s. Takingissuewithfunctionalistaccountsofreferencegroups,norms,andvalues,British sociologistsusedmaterialgleanedfrominterviewsasameansofteasingoutpeoples ownversionsoftheirsalientsocialvalues,especiallywhenfocusingonworkingclassor underprivilegedgroups.Thishadfewcounterpartsinothernations.Theinfluenceof MichaelYoung,PeterWillmottandespeciallyElizabethBott,whohadlinksto,or workedattheTavistockInstituteintheearly1950swascrucialhere.Bottsinfluential argumentthat(w)henanindividualtalksaboutclasshe[sic]istryingtosaysomething, inasymbolicform,abouthis[sic]experiencesofpowerandprestigeinhis[sic]actual membershipgroupsandsocialrelationships,bothpastandpresent(Bott1971:163),was dependentonusingtheinterviewasameansofelicitingpeoplesworldviewasan objectofsociologicalconcern(seemoregenerally,Savage2006).Bottsworkexcited largenumbersofsociologiststouseindepthinterviewmethodsasameansof understandingrespondentsownconceptionsofthesocialorder.MichaelYoung,Paul Willmott,ColinBell,JohnGoldthorpe,DavidLockwood,RayPahl,BrianJacksonand DennisMarsdenallcametoemploysuchmethodsintheirstudiesofcommunityand classinthe1960s,fromwhichpointthismethodbecameacoreandenduringfeatureof sociologicalmethodsintheUK. Thepointtonote,however,isthatthevalueofsuchindepthinterviews,whenremoved fromtheiroriginalcritiqueoffunctionalismbyshowinghownormsandvalueswere rootedineverydaysocialrelations,needsjustification.Itwaswidelyagreedbytheearly 1970sthatBottsbeliefthatitwaspossibletoshowhowpeoplesattitudestoclasswere relatedtotheirsocialexperienceprovedanempiricalfailure(Bulmer,1975).Although therewerecertainlyinnovativewaysinwhichindepthinterviewsweredeployed,itis nownotveryvelarwhatthesignificanceoftheindepthinterviewisinanageof knowingcapitalism.Certainly,itstillhasaroleingeneratingvaluableaccountsofactions thatcanbeusedeitherasanalyticresourcesintheirownright(Wooffit,2005))oras inferentialresourcesabletoinformmidrangetypificationsofsocialactions.Butasatool forgeneratingsophisticatedunderstandingsofthediverseweltanschauungthatpertainin contemporarysocietieswearenotsosure.Notonlyaretheworldviewsofdiverse populationsnowroutinelypresentedtousinthepopularandnewmediainsucha mannerthattheirsummarycharacterisationbysociologistsisnolongerasnecessary(or asinteresting)asonceitwas,butsomeofthesocialtransactionalresearchtechnologies discussedabovearenowalsoabletoproducenuancedrepresentationsofthelifeworlds ofquitespecificpopulationsgroupingsforexample.Geodemeographicsystemssuchas Mosaicuses61detailedidealtypicalqualitativeweltanschauung,characterisedand preciselymappedinsocialspace(BurrowsandGane,2006)whicharederivednot fromextensivequalitativeinterviewdatabutbydatafusiontechniquesthatdrawupon sourcessuchasstatisticalclusteranalysis,digitalphotos,focusgroupsandsoon.

12

RethinkingtheRepertoiresofEmpiricalSociology

We have argued that the repertoires of empirical sociology need to be rethought in an age of knowing capitalism. This call goes far beyond the now familiar demand for more methods training but asks for greater reflection on how sociologists can best relate to the proliferation of social data gathered by others, which we currently largely ignore. We do not think it is a satisfactory critical response to shrug these issues off through invoking our sophistication in relation to social theory. The kind of sociological theorising which presents synthetic accounts of social change is certainly interesting to a (relatively) wide audience and keeps sociology in the public eye. This explains the appeal of the writings of Giddens, Bauman, Sennett, and Beck, for instance. However, for all the claims to novelty, this kind of sociology is really just a revival of the kind of sociology that existed in the first half of the twentieth century under the leadership of Spencer, Geddes, Branford and Hobhouse. It is a kind of sociology which does not seek to define its expertise in terms of its empirical research skills, but in terms of its ability to provide an overview of a kind that is not intended to be tested by empirical research. The problem with this kind of sociology is the way that it can become unwittingly complicit in teleological visions of social change, where the past is mobilised in pursuit of a narrative account seeking to identify the present through its relationship to a possible future. It may be that this is the best possibility sociology has to define its public role in an age when if our arguments are correct - its empirical resources seem problematic, but if so, we should be clear that this does mark an abandonment of the vision of empirical research which was central to the expansion of sociology in the post-war years.
Anotherresponseistofocusonspecialisedareaswheresociologistscanclaimtoknowa greatdealaboutspecifictopicsofinterest,orwheretheyhaveaspecificspecialised expertiseonoffer.Inanerawhenjournalismisretreatingfromdetailedsocial investigation,thisisnodoubtanimportantventure.However,thisinvolves specialisationofresearchinterestsandmakesitdifficulttoretainasystematic,holistic sociologywhereitisessentialtorelatediverseaspectsofthesocialtogether(seealso Webster,(2005)).Runningthroughthispaperisourinterestinanalternativevision, wheresociologyseekstodefineitselfthroughaconcernwithresearchmethods (interpretedverybroadly),notsimplyasparticulartechniques,butasthemselvesan intrinsicfeatureofcontemporarycapitalistorganisation.Thisinterestinthepoliticsof methodinvolvessociologistsrenewingtheirinterestsinmethodologicalinnovation, andreportingcriticallyonnewdigitalisations. Wedonothavethespaceheretoexploreindetailwhatthismightinvolve,butweseeit asdrawingontheargumentsofwriterssuchasPickstone(2002),Latour(2005)and Abbott(2000)whoarguefordifferentreasonsthatweabandonasolefocuson causality(whichweareverybadat)andanalysisandembraceinsteadaninterestin descriptionandclassification(see,forexample,theexemplaryBowkerandStar(1999)).If weseethepowerofcontemporarysocialknowledgeaslyinginitsabilitiestoconduct minutedescription,wecanbettersituateourconcernsasexposingthesedescriptions, challengingthem,andpresentingourowndescriptions.Insuchaprocessweneeda

13

radicalmixtureofmethodscoupledwithrenewedcriticalreflection.Suchacallfora descriptivesociologydoesnotinvolvesolerelianceonnarrativebutseekstolink narrative,numbers,andimagesinwaysthatengagewith,andcritique,thekindsof routinetransactionalanalysesthatnowproliferate.Ratherthanseekingrefugeinour own,internaldebates,thisinvolvescastingournetwide,criticallyengagingwiththe extensivedatasourceswhichnowexist,andnotleast,campaigningforaccesstosuch datawheretheyarecurrentlyprivate.Throughthismeans,wecanrenewthecritical projectofsociologythroughchallengingcurrentpracticesinthecollection,useand deploymentofsocialdata.

14

Acknowledgements WethankTonyBennett,JonathanBradshaw,NickGane,PeterHalfpenny,Gindo Tampubolon,RichardWebberandKarelWilliamsforcommentsonearlierdraftsofthis paper. Aswediscussinthepaper,ourargumentswereinformedbyempiricalwork undertakenaspartofthefollowingtwoESRCfundedprojects:SocialCapitaland Consumption:PromotingSocialNetworkAnalysis,ESRCRefH333250061, Investigators,MikeSavage,NickCrossley,JohnScott,AlanWardeandGindo Tampubolon;andSortingPlacesOut?ClassificationanditsConsequencesinane SocietyESRCRefRES341250006Investigators,RogerBurrows,NickEllison,Nick Gane,MikeHardey,SimonParkerandBrianWoods. References 6,P.(2005)ThePersonalInformationEconomy:Trendsandprospectsforconsumersin S.Lee(ed)TheGlassConsumer:LifeinaSurveillanceSocietyBristol:PolicyPress. Abbott,A.(1990)TheSystemofProfessions:AnEssayontheDivisionofExpertLabor UniversityofChicagoPress. Abbott,A.(2000),TimeMatters,Chicago,UniversityofChicagoPress. Arber,S.,Dale,A.andProctor,M.(1988)SecondaryDataAnalysisLondon:Unwin Hyman. Bauman,Z.(1988),LegislatorsandInterpreters,Cambridge,Polity Bellah,R.,etal(1985),HabitsoftheHeart,Berkeley,Ca,UniversityofCaliforniaPress. Bott,E.,(1956),FamilyandSocialNetwork,London,Tavistock Bulmer,M,(ed)(1975),WorkingClassImagesofSociety,London,Routledge Bulmer,M.,Bales,K.,KishSklar,K.,(eds)(1991),TheSocialSurveyinHistorical Perspective18801940,Cambridge;CambridgeUniversityPress. Bourdieu,P.,(1999),TheWeightoftheWorld,Cambridge,Polity. Bowker,G.C.andStar,S.L.(1999)SortingThingsOut:ClassificationandItsConsequences. Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

15

 Burrows,R.andGane,N.(2006)Geodemographics,SoftwareandClass,Sociology,40,5, 793812. Devine,F.,(2004),ClassPractices,Cambridge,CambridgeUniversityPress. Dirks,N.,(2001),CastesofMind:colonialismandthemakingofmodernIndia,Princeton, PrincetonUniversityPress. Evans,M.(2005)TheDataInformedMarketingModelanditsSocialResponsibilityin S.Lee(ed)TheGlassConsumer:LifeinaSurveillanceSocietyBristol:PolicyPress. Foucault,M.,(1976),AHistoryofSexuality,vol1,London,Penguin. Frankenberg,R.(1957)VillageontheBorder:ASocialStudyofReligion,PoliticsandFootball inaNorthWalesValley,Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress Gane,N.(2004)TheFutureofSocialTheoryLondon:Continuum. Gibbons,M.,Limoges,C.,Nowotny,H.,Schwartzman,S.,Scott,P.,&Trow,M.(1994). Thenewproductionofknowledge:Thedynamicsofscienceandresearchincontemporary societies.London:SAGE. Gilbert,G.N.andAbell,P.(eds.).(1983).Accountsandaction.Aldershot:Gower. Goldthorpe,JH.andLockwood,D(1963)AffluenceandtheBritishclassstructure Sociological.Review,11,2,13363. Goldthorpe,J.H.,etal,(1968/69),TheAffluentWorkerintheClassStructure,Cambridge, CambridgeUniversityPress. Goldthorpe,J.H.,(2000),OnSociology,OxfordUniversityPress Halsey,A.H.,(2004),AHistoryofBritishSociology,Oxford,Clarendon. Hubble,N.,MassObservationandEverydayLife:Culture,History,Theory,Basingstoke, Palgrave. Inglehart, R. and Welzel, C. (2005) Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The HumanDevelopmentSequence.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Lamont,M.,(1992)Money,MoralsandManners:TheCultureoftheFrenchandthe AmericanUpperMiddleClass,Chicago:TheUniversityofChicagoPress.

16

 Latour,B.,(2005)ReassemblingtheSocial,Oxford,Clarendon, Lewin,K.(1951)Fieldtheoryinsocialscience;selectedtheoreticalpapers.D.Cartwright(ed.). NewYork:Harper&Row. Lupton,T.(1963),OntheShopfloor,Oxford:Pergamon. Miles,A.,(1999),SocialMobilityinnineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturyEngland, Basingstoke,Palgrave. Mitchell,T.,(2002),RuleofExperts,Egypt,technopolitics,modernity,Berkeley,University ofCaliforniaPress. Osborne,T.,andRose,N.,(1999),Dothesocialsciencescreatephenomena:thecaseof publicopinionresearch,BritishJournalofSociology,50,3,367396. Osborne,T.,andRose,N.,(2004),Spatialphenomenonotechnics:makingspacewith CharlesBoothandPatrickGeddes,SocietyandSpace,22,209228 Pickstone,J.,(2000),WaysofKnowing,Manchester,ManchesterUniversityPress. Pleace,N.andBretherton,J.(2006)Sharingandmatchinglocalandnationaldataonadults ofworkingagefacingmultiplebarrierstoemployment:AdministrativeDatasetsfor MeasuringImpactsonDisadvantageDepartmentforWorkandPensions ResearchReportNo387. Prandy,K.,andBotero,W.,(2000),SocialReproductionandMobilityinBritainand Irelandinthenineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturies,Sociology,34,2,265281. Ray,K.,Savage,M,Tampubolon,G.,Warde,A.,Longhurst,B.andTomlinson,M.(2003) TheExclusivenessofthePoliticalField:networksandpoliticalmobilizationSocial MovementStudies,2,1,3760. Rose,N.(1990)GoverningtheSoul:theshapingoftheprivateself,London,Routledge. Savage,M.(2006)Constructingandcontestingfamilies:ElizabethBottandthe formationoftheBritishsocialsciences,CRESC,mimeo. Savage,M.,Bagnall,G.,Longhurst,B.J.,(2005),GlobalisationandBelonging,London,Sage. Savage,M,Barlow,J.,Dickens,P.,Fielding,A.J.,(1992),Property,BureaucracyandCulture, London,Routledge.

17

 Thrift,N.,(2005),KnowingCapitalism,London,Sage. Urry,J.(2003)GlobalComplexity.Cambridge:Polity Warde,A.,Tampubolon,G.andSavage,M.(2005),Recreation,informalsocialnetworks andsocialcapital,JournalofLeisureResearch,37(4)(2005),40225. Webber,R.,(2004),Therelativepowerofgeodemographicsvisvispersonand householdleveldemographicvariablesasdiscriminatorsofconsumerbehaviour,CASA WorkingPaper84,UCL. Webster(2005)MakingsenseoftheinformationageInformation,Communicationand Society,8,(4),439458. Wooffitt,R.(2005)ConversationAnalysisandDiscourseAnalysis:AComparativeandCritical IntroductionLondon:Sage. Young,M.andWillmott,P.(1957)FamilyandKinshipinEastLondon,London:Routledge.

18