Die Ethnomethodologie umzirkeln. Karin Knorr-Cetina im Gespräch mit Hannes Krämer & René Salomon

In dem nachfolgenden Interview spricht Karin KNORR-CETINA über ihre Erfahrungen und Auseinandersetzungen mit dem Buch "Studies in Ethnomethodology" (GARFINKEL 1967) und dem intellektuellen Umfeld des Buches in den USA sowie in Deutschland. Sie unterscheidet eine orthodoxe ethnomethodologische Linie von einer offeneren Perspektive, die generell die kompetente Hervorbringung alltagsweltlicher Prozesse ernst nimmt und von der Ethnomethodologie (EM) beeinflusst ist, ohne dass die Forschungsperspektive unbedingt so benannt wird. Zugleich diskutiert sie die methodologischen Implikationen der Ethnomethodologie für die qualitative Sozialforschung im Allgemeinen und der Ethnografie im Speziellen. In diesem Zusammenhang identifiziert sie originelle methodologische Annahmen der EM, die sie auch heute noch zu einer aktuellen Forschungsperspektive machen (Alltagsweltlichkeit, Langsamkeit, Anti-Interpretativität). Schließlich verortet KNORR-CETINA die Ethnomethodologie in der Diskussion um neuere Sozialtheorien wie etwa die Praxistheorie

Zooming in and out : studying practices by switching theoretical lenses and trailing connections

This paper contributes to re-specifying a number of the phenomena of interest to organisational studies in terms of patterns of socio-material practices and their effects. It does so by outlining a vocabulary and strategy that make up a framework for theorising work and organisational practices. The vocabulary is based on number of sensitising concepts that connote practice as an open-ended, heterogeneous accomplishment which takes place within a specific horizon of sense and a set of concerns which the practice itself brings to bear. The strategy is based on the metaphorical movement of "zooming in" and "zooming out of" practice. The zooming in and out are obtained through switching theoretical lenses and repositioning in the field, so that certain aspects of the practice are fore-grounded while others are bracketed. Building on the results of an extended study of telemedicine, the paper discusses in detail the different elements of the framework and how it enhances our capacity to re-present practice. The paper concludes with some considerations on how the proposed approach can assist us in advancing the research agenda of organizational and work studies

Algorithms, governance, and governmentality:on governing academic writing

Algorithms, or rather algorithmic actions, are seen as problematic because they are inscrutable, automatic, and subsumed in the flow of daily practices. Yet, they are also seen to be playing an important role in organizing opportunities, enacting certain categories, and doing what David Lyon calls ‘‘social sorting.’’ Thus, there is a general concern that this increasingly prevalent mode of ordering and organizing should be governed more explicitly. Some have argued for more transparency and openness, others have argued for more democratic or value-centered design of such actors. In this article, we argue that governing practices—of, and through algorithmic actors—are best understood in terms of what Foucault calls governmentality. Governmentality allows us to consider the performative nature of these governing practices. They allow us to show how practice becomes problematized, how calculative practices are enacted as technologies of governance, how such calculative practices produce domains of knowledge and expertise, and finally, how such domains of knowledge become internalized in order to enact self-governing subjects. In other words, it allows us to show the mutually constitutive nature of problems, domains of knowledge, and subjectivities enacted through governing practices. In order to demonstrate this, we present attempts to govern academic writing with a specific focus on the algorithmic action of Turnitin

Hidden in the Middle : Culture, Value and Reward in Bioinformatics

Bioinformatics - the so-called shotgun marriage between biology and computer science - is an interdiscipline. Despite interdisciplinarity being seen as a virtue, for having the capacity to solve complex problems and foster innovation, it has the potential to place projects and people in anomalous categories. For example, valorised 'outputs' in academia are often defined and rewarded by discipline. Bioinformatics, as an interdisciplinary bricolage, incorporates experts from various disciplinary cultures with their own distinct ways of working. Perceived problems of interdisciplinarity include difficulties of making explicit knowledge that is practical, theoretical, or cognitive. But successful interdisciplinary research also depends on an understanding of disciplinary cultures and value systems, often only tacitly understood by members of the communities in question. In bioinformatics, the 'parent' disciplines have different value systems; for example, what is considered worthwhile research by computer scientists can be thought of as trivial by biologists, and vice versa. This paper concentrates on the problems of reward and recognition described by scientists working in academic bioinformatics in the United Kingdom. We highlight problems that are a consequence of its cross-cultural make-up, recognising that the mismatches in knowledge in this borderland take place not just at the level of the practical, theoretical, or epistemological, but also at the cultural level too. The trend in big, interdisciplinary science is towards multiple authors on a single paper; in bioinformatics this has created hybrid or fractional scientists who find they are being positioned not just in-between established disciplines but also in-between as middle authors or, worse still, left off papers altogether