Considerations for moving from collaboration to intervention

Abstract

Ruckenstein calls for social scientists to engage actively with the actors shaping digital society, outlining three modes of collaborative engagement: ‘creating trouble’, ‘securing breathing space’, and ‘composing futures’. While these strategies generate critical insights and reflective spaces, this commentary seeks to centre the interventional purposes of collaboration. This commentary emphasises the necessity for alignment between researchers’ interests and collaborators’ goals, as well as the importance of strategic timing in collaborative projects. By addressing these challenges, the commentary builds on Ruckenstein's framework, offering practical considerations in choosing collaborative projects which enable meaningful interventions.

At a time when data and algorithmic systems are significantly shaping society, engagement by social scientists is imperative, not just as critical observers but as active participants in intervening into such developments. It is with this in mind that Ruckenstein insists that social scientists not shy away from collaborating with the actors who are driving these changes. In this remarkable article she offers us a way forward as scholars to both ‘participate in society-making and problematize the actions of professionals who steer it’ (Ruckenstein, 2025: 3).

Ruckenstein describes three modes of engagement drawing from her years of collaborative research but focused on her collaboration with a group of what she calls ‘moderate activists’ in the MyData community who seek to develop tools that allow individuals to better control their data. It is fantastic to have such a clear and honest discussion of the possibilities and limits of this type of research. The article is highly valuable for outlining an approach which can be applied by many social scientists working in digital society and related fields. Many academics, especially anthropologists, are simply not trained for such collaborative research in their postgraduate education, where sole-authored and independent work is still largely deemed a pre-requisite for proving one's credentials as a scholar (Boyer and Marcus, 2020: 6). Yet, collaborative research is increasingly the domain in which much research must now take place, both due to changing nature of research funding expectations, the rise of interdisciplinary work and research impact being measured beyond scholarly contributions. The nature of fieldwork has also changed, particularly in anthropology which is now increasingly concerned with ‘studying up’ (Nader, 1974) or with ‘epistemic cultures’ (Knorr-Cetina, 1999). As Holmes and Marcus point out, the spaces that social scientists study are themselves shaped by an ethos of collaboration. Institutions such as corporations, universities, non-governmental organisations, they term the ‘the pervasive collaboratories that define social spaces today’ (Holmes and Marcus, 2020: 27). Thus collaboration is central to social science research, particularly within spaces involving professionals and experts who are key proponents in shaping digital society. Tackling these topics requires collaborative approaches, both with institutions and across disciplines.

In her article Ruckenstein outlines three modes of engagement that make up her collaborative explorations. ‘Creating trouble’ involves confronting professionals and prompting them to consider their role in shaping the future of society through interventions and probing. It aims to be deliberately troublesome, to poke holes in established ways of doing and seeing. ‘Securing breathing space’ involves creating conditions, the space and time, for reflection and deliberation and to allow for critical thinking aside from the relentless everyday operations of an organisation. And finally, ‘Composing futures’ involves the act of brokering between different parties and perspectives to coordinate and assemble futures collaboratively.

Ruckenstein emphasises these are not methodological steps, or a distinct path, but recursive and iterative modes of engagement. This approach significantly resonates with my own collaborative work, and I am quite convinced of its power. However, I was struck by her reflection on the limits of her collaboration, particularly within the possibilities of ‘composing futures’. While Ruckenstein points to examples of success related to ‘securing breathing space’ and ‘creating trouble’, when it comes to ‘composing futures’ she is more hesitant to claim success. She tells us about her powerlessness in ‘steering future developments’, and feeling that her contributions were limited ‘merely to observe, or add a critical sidenote’ (p. 10). This is where there is some tension in Ruckenstein's article. While the collaboration is successful in generating the in-depth knowledge, understanding and critical perspectives on the making of digital society, the interventional power of this knowledge through collaboration is not fully realised. I’d like to use this commentary to reflect on the possibilities, limitations and decision making that might be necessary to enable greater intervention in collaborative research projects.

My contributions here are all things the Ruckenstein remarks upon in the article but does not fully develop, but which I think will help to expand the relevance of her contribution to the practical implementation of the collaborative exploration she describes. I hope this offers some small way to push the interventional aspects forward, or at least to better understand the limits of it from a pragmatic sense, for those of us, and here I very much include myself, who are deeply inspired by Ruckenstein's engaged scholarship. How do we move the ‘creating trouble’, and ‘securing of breathing space’, further into the interventional? How can we push the ‘composing of futures’, beyond the workshop's sticky notes? This is the work that futures anthropologists have been motivated by and attempting, through much experimentation, to bring into being (Salazar et al., 2017). With this approach in mind, I offer a re-reading of some of the practical challenges Ruckenstein presents in her article as limitations but also choices that can shape collaborative research towards more interventional approaches. These are somewhat pragmatic, and perhaps reflect a pulling back of Ruckenstein's ambition. However, to me they offer a way forward within the balancing of the limited resources of scholars, with the potential for impactful research.

As Ruckenstein outlines there are substantial epistemic hierarchies in operation, which a social scientist in collaborative spaces is forced to overcome if they are to be taken seriously and thus capable of intervention. She says that we as social scientists must both assert our epistemic positions more boldly in such spaces and accept some of the epistemic requirements of our collaborators, imploring academics to become more ‘solutionist’ ourselves (p. 20). However, for this to be possible and generative, it is necessary that there is substantial alignment between the questions which interest our collaborators, the problems they want to solve, and the subject and interest of the researcher, so that we could ‘offer research findings as recommendations’ (p. 20). While this might seem obvious, in practice it is quite rare, and relatively limited. It is also perhaps a step beyond much of the collaborative work that has marked key scholars in this approach, such as Holmes and Marcus (2020), who instead focus on analytical alignment with their collaborators as necessary for maintaining access, but not necessarily as solution-focused intervention (p. 25).

Therefore, the dual nature of collaboration is worth reflecting on. As Margo Weiss (2016) has pointed out, collaboration has two meanings. Of course there is the meaning with which Ruckenstein is operating, the coming together of actors on shared projects or goals, but there is also a second meaning, that of being traitorous and complicit with the enemy. And as Weiss has pointed out, much of anthropology's hesitancy around becoming the second has limited its acceptance of the first, something that Ruckenstein also signals in her piece, when she describes her research as being called, ‘co-opted’ or ‘neoliberal’ by some academics. In line with this, including the complicated histories of collaboration with colonial and military projects which have marked anthropological research (Asad, 1973) and which continue to shape our disciplinary hesitancy to intervene, I would suggest that collaboration is not a good in its own right. Further, that for collaboration to become generative beyond the analytical and into the sphere of intervention and impact into the shaping of futures, it must involve collaborators with questions and problems which align with the interests, methods and ethics of the researchers, so that research findings are capable of becoming ethical and appropriate solutions.

Secondly, another key issue flagged but not fully elaborated by Ruckenstein is on the timing of the collaboration. The entry point of the social scientists into a collaboration is a crucial aspect of its potential success. Social scientists are often invited to projects after the scope of the problem has been agreed to. This substantially limits the potential for intervention. Once the epistemic boundaries around a problem have been drawn, the solutions must fit within these boundaries. If too late, the work becomes merely a critique, incapable of shaping the problem/solution framing. The second issue of time is of course the urgency of some matters, something that is a consistent problem with, especially anthropology's, preference for long engagement. ‘Securing breathing space’ is itself a pause, an interruption into the temporalities of many institutions we might see ourselves attempting to collaborate with. This is powerful and is something that Ruckenstein admits to being one of the most impactful aspects of her presence in the organisation. However, when such a pause is inconsistent with the timelines of organisational decision making, and the deliverables of policy worlds and legal proceedings, such breathing space is quickly replaced by the imperatives and urgency of operations. The breathing space must be consistent with the timelines of institutional priorities; thus the intervention is best suited to questions with longer timelines, longer-term strategic visions rather than imminent ones. This is a particular challenge in the study of digital society, which is structured by an innovation agenda that generates the feeling of constant technological change and raising urgent questions requiring urgent responses. How can momentary disruption and its revelations persist within the urgency and momentum of competing priorities?

While Ruckenstein makes a compelling case for collaborative research, her work also raises important questions about its limits. Are there contexts in which collaboration is simply not possible or desirable? For instance, when epistemic gaps are too wide and project timelines too pressing. In such cases, researchers must be willing to acknowledge these limits and explore alternative modes of engagement, such as advocacy, independent critique or collaborating with more aligned partners.

This recognition does not undermine the value of Ruckenstein's approach but rather strengthens it by encouraging researchers to make strategic choices about when, how and with whom they collaborate. Collaboration is not an end in itself; it is a means of generating insights, interventions and possibilities for alternative futures. Researchers must therefore recognise and reflect on the practical and ethical boundaries of collaboration, ensuring that their work remains both impactful and critically grounded. In this sense, Ruckenstein's article is not just a framework for collaboration, but a powerful reminder of the role social scientists can and must play. Her work challenges us to move beyond the comforts of detached critique and to engage boldly, creatively and pragmatically with the systems and actors that shape our lives.