I saw Lucy Suchman and Natalie Jeremijenko weigh the meaning of "experiment" at the Technoscience Salon this past Friday. Philosophers of science grapple endlessly with the subject of "what constitutes experiment" in the context of traditional science, and many of the more orthodox types have a real problem affording the concept to social scientists, as if Latour, Haraway, and Suchman herself, haven't spent years wrestling with it as well.
I am less interested in this battlefront, as I am in exploring novel ways to consider the traditional experiment, especially in the context of developing a reflexive methodological approach.
Hine repeatedly focuses on this concept of reflexivity, emphasizing the idea of "immersion... by engaging in relevant practices wherever they might be found."
Jeremijenko blurs the lines between ethnography and experiment by immersing herself in her study subject. As Hine notes, "there are some interesting opportunities to be exploited by a move into more active engagement." This is the blurring of the lines Jeremijenko engages in: nearly every one of her "field sites" is situated in the body, in society, in the environment, in the spatial...
I am reminded of Feyerabend, who I'm going to paraphrase (very) loosely: method needs to constantly be reinterpreted. It must grow and be reflexive, or risk being doomed. Stasis is the enemy of science. Feyerabend was postulating on the scientific method, but I don't think I'm out of line in applying his thesis here. The experiment, or the ethnography, or the case study... must grow and be adaptive. Feyerabend argued for an open and reflexive approach to epistemology. Both Suchman and Jeremijenko argue for no less.
No comments:
Post a Comment