Suchergebnisse

The future of ethnography in the Big Data era
By taking an ethnographic viewpoint, Beuving explores knowledge claims about Big Data (BD) as discussed in Seth Stephens-Davidowitz' best-selling book Everybody Lies (2017). It portrays BD in a way that evokes affinity with ethnography: as a naturalistic research practice that makes small subpopulations visible and discloses people's hidden motives. But for Beuving this threefold assertion appears to rest on misguided conceptions. For the ethnographic researcher, naturalism refers to a reflexive practice, yet the BD researcher associates it with researcher invisibility. And the term population, which has a statistical meaning in BD, has a strong theoretical connotation in ethnography. Finally, motives in BD are about direct interpretation of revealed preferences as social facts, whereas the ethnographer considers them to be expressions of social behavior that require a Verstehende interpretation.
Bosch sees the relation of ethnography and Big Data research as a new form of Methodenstreit, which urges qualitative researchers to develop and apply user-oriented analysis techniques. Gigengack stresses that ethnography and Big Data are in fact incompatible. They should not be seen as methodological rivals in understanding society and social conduct. Ethnography and Big Data analyses are different perspectives on the social world. Ethnography should study the world of Internet behavior as it studies religious rites or societal identities.

Reinoud Bosch en Roy Gigengack reiken beiden interessante gezichtspunten aan in reactie op mijn vraag naar de naturalistische kennisaanspraken van BD en de consequenties voor kwalitatief onderzoek/etnografie. Bosch omarmt, net als ikzelf, een meer filosofisch-pragmatisch perspectief waarin BD en etnografie prima naast elkaar kunnen bestaan. Daarbij is het vanzelfsprekend dat beide vanuit verschillende onderzoeksproblemen vertrekken: de statistische beschrijving van gedrag/sociale rollen versus het van binnenuit begrijpen daarvan. Zoals we betogen in ons boek (Beuving & De Vries, 2015), zijn beide nodig om samenlevingen te begrijpen: sociale feiten (Durkheim) en betekenissen (Thomas) zijn onderling afhankelijk. Het wederzijds afdwingen van een methodische benadering en conceptueel kader is dan uiteraard weinig vruchtbaar. De groeiende digitalisering van de samenleving verandert maar weinig aan de geldigheid van dat fundamentele sociaalwetenschappelijke principe, hoewel er wel praktische methodische consequenties zijn – een discussie die we eerder al weleens in KWALON voerden (bijv. Warmelink, Beuving & Wester, 2015).

The subject of this study is the strategic cooperation of the permanent members in the Security Council in the period 1946 2000. Because of their right of veto the cooperation of the permanent members has a significant influence on the functioning of the Council. The most important aspects of the cooperation that were investigated are the intensity of the cooperation and the ef-fectiveness of this cooperation in preventing and ending wars. To investigate these aspects, for both the intensity and the effectiveness measuring instruments were constructed. These measuring instruments were based on comprehensive sets of so-called 'leading indicators' and statistical methods and techniques. The intensity of the cooperation increased gradually from 1946 until 1990 (the end of the Cold War). Then it started to increase rapidly until 1996. From 1996 a slight decrease can be discer-ned. The strong increase in the strategic cooperation of the permanent members in the security Council can be established in all the majors forms of cooperation in the Council: the numbers of adopted strategic resolutions and presidential statements, the numbers of employed means (like peacekeeping missions and enforcement actions) and the amounts of money that were spent on peacekeeping activities. Further it was established that the response times of the Council regarding potential and waged wars dropped significantly since the end of the Cold War. The effectiveness of the cooperation of the permanent members in the Council was, insofar this was measurable with the applied method, not good for many years, but after the Cold War a clear improvement can be discerned. This goes for the prevention of wars, as well as for post war peacebuilding and the ending of wars. Also the numbers of potential and waged wars in which the Council not intervened dropped significantly since the end of the Cold War, as well as the use of vetoes. The large number of potential and waged wars in which the Council did not intervene during the Cold War was nearly exclusively caused by 'non decisions' (the non placing of wars on the agenda), and not by the use of vetoes by permanent members, as is often assumed in literature. Further, a comparison of two phase classifications of the Cold War showed that the great powers, even when there are great tensions among them, are prepared to cooperate in the Security Council to resolve strategic matters, if they consider this in their interest. Analyses of the adopted strategic resolutions during the Cold War revealed that cooperation here was nearly exclusively limited to issues that were not core issues of the Cold War. From this it can be concluded that cooperation against third party states was a basis of cooperation of the great powers in the Security Council. Finally, the results of this study show clearly that the Security Council was regarded and used to a large extent by the permanent members in the period 1946 2000 as an instrument of foreign policy to pursue their national interests, and not as an instrument of the world community to prevent and end wars.