The article draws on recent debates about empirical sociology's methodological crisis that results from the emergence of sophisticated information-based capitalism and digital culture. Researchers face the challenge of ‘newly coordinated social reality’ in which social relations and interconnections exist across time and space. However, this challenge co-exists with an unprecedented opportunity to use digital multimedia to reimagine social research. In the face of these developments it is argued that the sociological craft needs to be invigorated by a renewed focus on its political purpose. Digital culture offers researchers the opportunity to develop new methodological devices. This vision is contrasted with a critique of dead sociology that is characterized as objectifying, comfortable, disengaged and parochial. The article argues for a live sociology, able to attend to the fleeting, distributed, multiple and sensory aspects of sociality through research techniques that are mobile, sensuous and operate from multiple vantage points. If researchers enact reality rather than simply reflect it, there is an opportunity to create sociological forms of representation that are more knowing and innovative than their antecedents.
AdkinsL. and LuryL., (2009), ‘What is the empirical’, European Journal of Social Theory, 12: 5–20.
2.
BackL., (2009a), ‘Portrayal and betrayal: Bourdieu, photography and sociological life’, Sociological Review, 57 (3): 471–491.
3.
BackL., (2009b), ‘Researching community and its moral projects’, 21st Century Society, 4 (2): 2001–2014.
4.
BackL., (2010), Broken Devices and New Opportunities: Re-Imagining the Tools of Qualitative Research, ESRC National Centre for Research Methods, Working Papers Series 08/10, NCRM: Southampton.
5.
BeckU., (2000), ‘The cosmopolitan perspective: Sociology of the second age of modernity’, British Journal of Sociology, 51 (1): 79–105.
6.
BeckU. and SznaiderN., (2006), ‘Unpacking cosmopolitanism for the social sciences: A research agenda’, British Journal of Sociology, 57 (1): 1–23.
7.
BeckerH., (2007), Telling about Society, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
ChakrabartyD., (2000), Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
13.
DenchG.GavronK. and YoungM., (2006), The New East End: Kinship, Race and Conflict, London: The Young Foundation.
14.
EmmelN. and ClarkA., (2007), ‘We walk the walk, but can we talk the talk (with deference to John Lee Hooker): Walkabouts to understand the lived environment of the community’, Developing ‘mobile’ methods, 12 June 2007, Cardiff University at http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/qualiti/IntDisSem2007/rlmleeds.ppt (accessed January 2009).
15.
FraserM., (2009), ‘Experiencing sociology’, European Journal of Social Theory, 12 (1): 63–82.
16.
GeertzC., (1973), The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, New York: Basic Books.
HarperD., (2004), ‘Psychology and the “war on terror”’, Journal of Critical Psychology, Counselling and Psychotherapy, 4: 1–10.
22.
HarrissonT., (1947), ‘The future of sociology’, Pilot Papers, 2 (1): 10–25.
23.
IngoldT., (2010), Bringing Things to Life: Creative Entanglements in a World of Materials, ESRC National Centre for Research Methods Working Paper 15, Realities: Manchester.
24.
LashS., (2002), Critique of Information, London: Sage.
25.
LashS., (2009), ‘Afterword: In praise of the a posteriori: Sociology and the empirical’, European Journal of Social Theory, 12: 175–187.
26.
LawJ. and UrryJ., (2004), ‘Enacting the social’, Economy and Society, 33: 390–410.
27.
LatourB., (2005), Reassembling the Social, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
28.
MayhewD., (2007), ‘The new East End’, Identity, April: 12–13.
29.
MeadM., (1995), ‘Visual anthropology in a discipline of words’, in HockingP. (ed.), Principles of Visual Anthropology, 2nd edn, 3–10, Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
30.
MignoloW., (2000), Local Histories/Global Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges, and Border Thinking, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
31.
MillsC. W., (1959), The Sociological Imagination, New York: Oxford University Press.
32.
MillsC. W., (1963), ‘The social role of the intellectual’, in HorowitzI. L. (ed.), Power, Politics and People: The Collected Essays of C. Wright Mills, 292–304, New York: Ballentine.
PerecG., (1997), Species of Spaces and Other Pieces, London: Penguin Books.
35.
PutnamR., (2007), ‘U pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the 21st century: The 2006 Johan Skyette Prize Lecture’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 30 (2): 137–174.
36.
RabinowP., (2003), Anthropos Today: Reflections on Modern Equipment, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
RouchJ. (1995 [1973]), ‘The camera and man’, in HockingP. (ed.), Principles of Visual Anthropology, 2nd edn, Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
39.
SaidE., (1996), Representations of the Intellectual, New York: Vintage Books.
40.
SaidE., (2001), ‘The public role of writers and intellectuals’, Nation, 17/24 September: 28.
41.
SavageM., (2009), ‘Contemporary sociology and the challenge of descriptive assemblage’, European Journal of Social Theory, 12: 155–174.
42.
SavageM., (2010), Identities and Social Change in Britain since 1940: The Politics of Method, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
43.
SavageM. and BurrowsR., (2007), ‘The coming crisis of empirical sociology’, Sociology, 41 (5): 885–899.
44.
SmallA., (1895), ‘The era of sociology’, The American Journal of Sociology, 1 (1): 1–15.
45.
SteedmanC., (2000), ‘Enforced narratives’, in CosslettT.SummerfieldP. and LuryC. (eds), Feminism and Autobiography: Texts, Theories, Methods, 25–39, London: Routledge.
46.
SteinmetzG., (2009), ‘The imperial entanglements of sociology in the United States, Britain, and France since the nineteenth century’, Ab Imperio, 4: 23–78.
WilsonA., (2008), ‘“Is that Escape you're wearing Miss”: A synaesthetic approach to research into everyday prison life’, paper presented at Vital Signs: Researching Real Life conference, University of Manchester, 10 September.
