To simplify Wittgenstein’s original formulation somewhat, a ‘hinge’ concept is one that has interpretative flexibility but is held fixed by a researcher in order to clarify thinking
(Wittgenstein 1969).32 The label of ‘hinge’ is drawn from comparison with a door. Hinges
could be fixed in different places on a door, and maybe taken out and re-fixed in a different location, but they must be fixed somewhere for the door to function. Similarly, addressing a question requires fixing the meaning of some concepts beforehand. To maintain clarity while also opening up a breadth of analysis, I used different hinges in different chapters. In chapters 6 and 7, which analyse descriptive meaning-making (see Table 3.6), I held closed
86
questions of how discussion was related to notions of shared emotional meaning. While I noted that certain behaviours were preferred or discouraged, I did not focus on questions around constructing community values, desirable behaviour, or threats to group identity. In chapters 5 and 8 I analysed emotional meaning-making, examining the subfora as places of community and shared emotional experiences. At points where I related these to ‘science’, I relied on a broad notion of science as a collection of research disciplines and/or professional practices and institutions related to these disciplines. Wynne and Irwin (1996) note that such a view of science is widely shared in Anglophone contexts, though assuming it is universal is problematic; however, for the purposes of these chapters it provided a view which
participants would be likely to recognise.
In my final discussion chapter (9) I allowed all questions of emotion, description, and science to be open, using the terminology developed in previous chapters to maintain clarity.
3.5.2 Reflexive Note
In arguing for the context-sensitivity of any claims, constructivist researchers must acknowledge that our own claims to knowledge are produced within particular contexts. Reflexivity refers to the process of critically reflecting, as a researcher, upon the contexts of one’s own knowledge-producing practices (Charmaz 2000). Psychoanalytically informed scholars argue that reflexivity is particularly important when interpreting emotional
attachments to particular objects. This is because one’s engagement with the emotional experiences of others is inevitably shaped by one’s own affective and emotional states, in a subconscious manner which can be hard to locate (Hills 2005). I shall reserve specific reflexive comments for relevant points in the analysis, in particular when reflecting on the overall findings of this thesis (chapter 9). However, following scholars from within FS (Baym 2000; Bennett 2009) and STS (Dawson 2012; Smallman 2015), I present some brief
autobiographical details which may be relevant when considering my analysis.
Demographically, I am a white British male, born in 1991, raised from within the class ‘1’ in the UK’s National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification (ONS 2011) or the ‘elite’ in the more recent Great British Survey (Savage et al. 2013). In terms of axiology – the social values which inform research (Heron and Reason 1997) – I take the view that academic research should engage with life beyond the academy, but that specific problem-based research can focus on extreme cases at the expense of everyday life. My own relationship with science is based largely on my undergraduate degree which combined Physical
87
Sciences with History and Philosophy of Science. I would regard myself as someone who derives emotional pleasure from talking about science, and also has a high degree of trust in mainstream scientific consensus – though, following the STS principle of symmetry (Bloor 1976), in this thesis I do not use my own views on whether claims are ‘scientifically correct’ as a factor in analysis. I also do not see myself as a member of any online and/or fan
community. I have generally been a reluctant adopter of social networking technologies, and prior to this project had rarely participated in online discussions with people I was unfamiliar with offline. I therefore viewed all the discussions in this thesis from the stance of a
confident engager with science, but an outsider to the online form of the interactions.
Conclusion
This chapter outlined the methodologies and methods I used to address my research question. I drew on qualitative and constructivist methodologies, which focussed my attention on how social interactions are shaped by specific contexts.
I collected natural discussion data from four case studies of online fora. The case studies were chosen to provide a high likelihood of science-related discussions, while still providing variability for comparison. Using multiple case studies, and only reading a sample of threads, meant I did not develop a full ethnographic familiarity with any one case study. However I employed computer-aided text analysis and interviews to familiarise myself with data which went beyond my samples, and locate recurring themes across the threads. I used discourse analysis to examine how these themes were conveyed through word choice, with reference to how this was shaped by surrounding interactions. Analyses were divided up into four chapters, each focussing on a different form of meaning-making – latent emotional, manifest descriptive, latent descriptive, and manifest emotional.
Risks of bias, unsystematicity, and lack of clarity were addressed by clearly outlining the basis for the theme and sample in each empirical chapter; by clarifying the aims and limits of my approach to emotion and meaning-making, in each chapter and in the thesis as a whole; and by a reflexive understanding of my own engagement with the data. Finally, the tension between informed consent and reliable research findings was addressed by engagement with moderators and (where possible) the community prior to analysis, and by caution in data storage and reportage.
88