Do You Agree That Digitalisation Is Leading To The ‘Coming Crisis Of Empirical Sociology’? If So, What Will This Entail For The Use Of Quantitative Methods In Sociological Inquiry?
Technological ‘digitalisation’ is changing sociological inquiry. Developments in recent decades have resulted in the collection, use and interpretation of data, even the role of the sociologist, coming into question - whether or not professionals wish to acknowledge it. Savage and Burrows, in their controversial paper, The Coming Crisis of Empirical Sociology, investigate this ‘crisis’ and argue that ‘In an age of knowing capitalism sociologists have not adequately thought about the challenges posed to their expertise by the proliferation of ‘social’ transactional data.’ (Burrows, Savage, 2007:885). In light of this rapid digitalisation, we must question whether it is really necessary to describe such changes as a ‘crisis’, and instead discuss the developments as opportunity for progression in sociology, improving the scope and impact of research.
The impact of digitalisation on Sociology is undeniable – and more broadly, digitalisation is arguably reworking ‘the very meaning of social relations’ (Latour cited in Burrow, Savage: 2009). However, Burrows and Savage explain that it ‘can be tempting for sociologists to ignore the swathes of ‘social data’ that now proliferate.’ (Burrow, Savage: 2009). In digitalisation we are seeing the concept of ‘Knowing Capitalism’, a vast research infrastructure for business improvement, found in the form of Tesco Club Cards, for example, proving the company with vast amounts of customer information: their purchases, the time of their shop, their location, their age, nationality, etc. This involves little effort from the company, but provides masses of information in quantities that are simply unattainable by sociologists. Savage and Burrows both speak of their shock on discovering the quantity of data currently collected (Burrows, Savage: 2007, 886), but even by 2012, five years after The Coming Crisis of Empirical Sociology and earlier work by Latour and Urry in 2004-5, McKie and Ryan’s paper Exploring Trends and Challenges in Sociological Research showed that many sociologists still had not sufficiently confronted these developments. Whether this is due to a failure to recognize the necessity to act, or a conscious refusal to accept the changes, sociologists must engage in digitalisation and question how administrative data can be turned into sociological concerns. Moreover, we must improve our understanding of exactly what digitalisation entails and whether it should be perceived as a threat to quantitative methods in sociological inquiry.
Through digitalisation, ‘a parallel, and largely unknown world of commercial sociology’ has been revealed, presenting a ‘crisis [that] has not been sufficiently understood’ (Burrows, Savage, 2007:885,887). However, it must be questioned whether digitalisation actually threatens empirical sociology. With the increase in digitalisation, Latour asks whether academic sociology is becoming less of an ‘obligatory point of passage’? (Latour cited in Burrows, Savage, 2007:885). Indeed, recent developments have resulted in debate regarding the role of sociologists. Surely, though, in a discipline based on the ever changing social, frequent assessment of its academic purpose is vital, not a crisis. Indeed, Webber in his paper Response to ‘The Coming Crisis of Empirical Sociology’ An Outline of the Research Potential of Administrative and Transactional Data, highlights that the ‘kinds of transactional and administrative data’ collected in digitalisation can offer much to the sociologist. Webber encourages sociologists to embrace the potential of this digitalised administrative data, working with ‘big data’ collectors, rather than ignoring them. Arguably, it is only a crisis if it is allowed to become one. Of course, a crisis could materialize if companies do not allow sociologists access to their data – yet, and perhaps most importantly, Burrows and Savage noted in 2007 that ‘Those working in these [companies] were using highly complex methods and the rhetoric of sociological discourse…as an analytic justification for their practices.’ – companies are already using sociological analysis to understand data, and will continue to. Sociology should play a significant role in such developments, forming mutually beneficial relationships with companies, sharing expertise and data.
There has long been debate between quantitative and qualitative sociologists, but Savage and Burrows argue that this discussion is ‘much less salient in a world of digitalised information’ and that ‘debates need to be placed aside as we consider how to address ‘the fundamental challenge of dealing with the proliferation of social data’ (Burrows, Savage, 2009: 765). Digitalisation is affecting all sociologists, both those of a quantitative and qualitative nature. Moreover, Burrows and Savage speak extensively of the ‘role of the empirical sociologist’ and in stating that ‘digitalisation is changing the significance of empirical research’, they argue that empirical sociology must be rethought ‘in an age of knowing capitalism’ (Burrows, Savage, 2007:885, 895). Furthermore, they ‘point out how key agents in the research apparatus of contemporary capitalist organizations now simply don’t need the empirical expertise of quantitative social scientists as they go about their business.’ (Burrows, Savage, 2007:890). Surely, though, it could be argued that if knowledge can only be claimed if based on empirical evidence, then digitalisation can be used in empirical sociology, and perhaps, rather than a crisis, we should view it as a savior of empirical sociology, facilitating its progression in the modern world.
Historically, ‘academic sociologists were remarkable methodological innovators’ (Burrows, Savage, 2007:888). Sociological innovations such as the questionnaire and the sample survey have been used extensively in research, and although recently their ‘value in contemporary social life’ (Urry, cited in Burrows, Savage, 2007:894) has been questioned, sociologists should continue to be equally innovative today. Indeed, social scientists inventing and supporting research ‘technologies’ allowing access to the ‘social’ is the role of sociology... in terms of the importance of its empirical research technologies’ (Burrows, Savage, 2007:889). In fact, Webber cites two main areas where such a proposal can be employed: names and postcodes. He argues that analysing names can provide valuable information about a group, finding that ‘choice of name is related to class, gender and ethnic definition.’ and that they ‘are used by organisations to determine nationality, rather than self-identification.’ as ‘responding to a survey with a ‘correct’ answer in these contexts is not as straightforward as it may otherwise appear. (Webber, 2009: 169, 170). Equally, he states that postcodes offer much information for sociologists, and ‘can speak to the theoretical arguments made by Savage et al. (2005) and by Parker et al. (2007), that we are undergoing a process of the ‘spatialisation of class’, whereby location is the single most telling indicator of social positions and identity.’ as they ‘allow us powerful means to unravel lifestyle differences in ways that are difficult to distinguish using conventional survey research.’ (Webber, 2009: 171, 172). Through innovative methods, sociologists can further their analysis, utilising the power of digitalisation for their own means, enabling them to ‘best relate to the proliferation of social data gathered by others, which we currently largely ignore.’ The ‘crisis’ will come if this is not acknowledged.
Digitalisation is changing sociology, leaving many questioning of the purpose of their discipline, their role as professionals within this field, and how they deal with the rise of big data. Others have not accepted or even acknowledged the ‘gravity of the challenges’ (Burrows, Savage, 2009) posed, clinging on to traditional research methods such as the sample survey, something that Burrows and Savage feel may ‘leave them exposed to marginalization or even redundancy.’ (Burrows, Savage: 2007) The inward attitudes rightly condemned by Savage and Burrows are largely futile. There is little point wondering how to compete or challenge digitalisation: companies are too powerful for any objection to have an impact – rather, working with ‘big data’ companies can surely present more opportunities for sociologists, while simultaneously benefitting companies. Burrow and Savage urge sociologists to ‘explore the potential’ offered by digitalisation, whereby companies provide big data to sociologists, and in return, sociologists provide the analysis for companies to make sense of their data. Sociologists should also ‘challenge the rights of private companies to use data’ making the public more aware of how their data is being used, ‘engaging with the extensive data sources which now exist, campaigning for access to such data where they are currently private.’ (Burrows, Savage, 2007: 896). It could, of course, be argued that this would be facilitating big business, and while not advocating for the puppeteering of sociology, if society can be better understood as a result, and the organization of businesses improved for the benefit of workers and consumers, then surely this is of benefit. Webber ‘illustrated how administrative and transactional data are being creatively harnessed to address issues of sociological importance in greater detail than is possible using conventional survey methods.’ and that we ‘have considerable, if hitherto untapped, potential for empirical sociology.’ (Webber, 2009: 176). Ultimately, sociologists need to continue to be leaders in innovative research methods, and to adapt approaches to data collection to work best with the modern world. Arguably with digitalisation and technological improvements this is not only increasingly possible, but could potentially offer impressive quantitative results, reinforcing the importance of empirical sociology in the modern world.
Bibliography:
Savage, M, Burrows, R (2007) The Coming Crisis of Empirical Sociology
Webber, R, 2009 Response to `The Coming Crisis of Empirical Sociology': An Outline of the Research Potential of Administrative and Transactional Data
Savage, M, Burrows, R (2009) Some Further Reflections on the Coming Crisis of Empirical Sociology
McKie, L, Ryan, L (2012) Exploring Trends and Challenges in Sociological Research