Oxford Left Review October 2015 What should soĐiologists do aďout ďig data? By Ioana Cerasella Chis This post is a follow-up to Ioanas artiĐle in the last issue of the Odžford Left ‘eǀieǁ, Big Data: A TeĐhnologLJ of AndžietLJ, ǁhiĐh Đan ďe found here. Big data is presented as a tool for the materialisation of Enlightenment ideals of rationality, objectivity and development, and it is fast-paced. However, as it has been used as a technology of penality, it reveals the failure of the Enlightenment to implement its idealised reason (Abbinnett 2007). In its very attempt to overcome metaphysics, a purely data-driven, neo-positivist sociology would only retort to becoming purely metaphysical – a new form of overly speculative and dogmatic scepticism, without its claims being rooted in the material experiences of society. Scholars such as Savage and Burrows declared that the relevance of sociological methods has already beeŶ ŵaƌgiŶalised due to pƌiǀate fiƌŵs aĐĐessiďilitLJ to laƌge datasets, pƌoduĐiŶg a Đƌisis to eŵpiƌiĐal soĐiologLJ ;ϮϬϬϳͿ. Theiƌ feaƌ ǁas pƌoŵpted paƌtlLJ ďLJ “aǀages atteŶdaŶĐe of the E“‘C ‘eseaƌĐh Methods Festiǀal iŶ ϮϬϬϰ; haǀiŶg atteŶded the 2014 edition, I ĐaŶ oŶlLJ ĐoŶfiƌŵ that ďig data ǁas oŶe of the ŵaiŶ teƌŵs used ;foƌ the ŵost part positively) at the conference. Already scholars such as Tinati have suggested that sociologists should collaborate with computer scientists, unless they are willing to gain computational expertise (Housley et. al. 2014:6). However, the quantification associated with big data methods and technological devices narrows the conceptualisation of research and knowledge (boyd and Crawford 2012:665). Mixed-methods may seem a better option, but Hesse-Biďeƌ ǁaƌŶs of theiƌ thiŶg- Ŷess ;i.e. ƌeifiĐatioŶͿ as a ƌesult of a ŵoǀeŵeŶt toǁaƌds guideliŶes foƌ ďest pƌaĐtiĐe aŶd theiƌ foƌŵalisatioŶ as desigŶ ;ϮϬϭϰͿ. “oĐial ƌeseaƌĐheƌs should eŶgage ǁith teĐhŶologLJ aŶd science critically, to ŵaiŶtaiŶ soĐiologLJs Ŷoƌŵatiǀe goals of doiŶg ŵeaŶiŶgful, pƌoďleŵ- solǀiŶg ƌeseaƌĐh. Although this appƌoaĐh eŶtails a foĐus oŶ the politiĐs of ŵethods ;“aǀage and Burrows 2007:895), one ought to be careful not to fetishise methodology. Instead, researchers should seek new ways of doing cooperative research within and outside academia, to avoid both audit culture and institutional confines in producing knowledge (Chis and Cruickshank 2014). A critical and emancipatory sociology needs to avoid abstraction and ďase its ƌeasoŶiŶg oŶ eǀideŶĐe useful foƌ the peƌsoŶal tƌouďles of ŵilieu ;Mills ϭϵϱϵ:ϴͿ, aŶd on making links between individual troubles and wider social issues. How might we find a radical potential in the surveillance-induced anxieties of the big data era? (Crawford 2014). Lack of financial and legal support, barriers to learning and coming- together, and big data based sanctions within the benefits system, all exacerbate individual vulnerability and the destruction of cooperation. A political articulation of anxiety and its link to the toxic dominant ideologies and their technologies would create a context in which the commonality of all anxieties could be acknowledged. Anxiety ought to be articulated in a way that recognises the commonality of negative experiences caused by the same processes. The sense of guilt and personal failure for not coping with a destructive system can be channelled towards mobilisation and cooperation through alliances. By creating a space for sharing