Sociology has been accused of neglecting the importance of material things in human life and the material aspects of social practices. Efforts to correct this have recently been made, with a growing concern to demonstrate the materiality of social organisation, not least through attention to objects and the body. As a result, there have been a plethora of studies reporting the social construction and effects of a variety of material objects as well as studies that have explored the material dimensions of a diversity of practices. In different ways these studies have questioned the Cartesian dualism of a strict separation of 'mind' and 'body'. However, it could be argued that the idea of the mind as immaterial has not been entirely banished and lingers when it comes to discussing abstract thinking and reasoning. The aim of this article is to extend the material turn to abstract thought, using mathematics as a paradigmatic example. This paper explores how writing mathematics (on paper, blackboards, or even in the air) is indispensable for doing and thinking mathematics. The paper is based on video recordings of lectures in formal logic and investigates how mathematics is presented at the blackboard. The paper discusses the iconic character of blackboards in mathematics and describes in detail a number of inscription practices of presenting mathematics at the blackboard (such as the use of lines and boxes, the designation of particular regions for specific mathematical purposes, as well as creating an 'architecture' visualising the overall structure of the proof). The paper argues that doing mathematics really is "thinking with eyes and hands" (Latour, 1986). Thinking in mathematics is inextricably interwoven with writing mathematics.

No abstract

No abstract

Despite the huge literature on the methodology of the social sciences, relatively little interest has been shown in sociological description of social science research methods in practice, i.e., in the application of sociology to sociological work. The overwhelming (if not exhaustive) interest in research methods is an evaluative and prescriptive one. This is particularly surprising, since the sociology of science has in the past few decades scrutinised almost every aspect of natural science methodology. Ethnographic and historical case studies have moved from an analysis of the products of science to investigations of the processes of scientific work in the laboratory. Social scientists appear to have been rather reluctant to explore this aspect of their own work in any great depth.In this paper, we report on a "methodography", an empirical study of research methods in practice. This took the form of a small-scale investigation of the working practices of two groups of social scientists, one with a predominantly qualitative approach, the other involved in statistical modelling. The main part of the paper involves a comparison between two brief episodes taken from the work of each, one focussing on how two researchers analyse and draw conclusions from an interview transcript, the other on how collaborators work out an agreed final version of a statistical model for combining temporal and spatial data. Based on our analysis of these examples, we raise some questions about the way in which social scientists reason through their problems, and the role that characterisations of research, as research of a particular kind (e.g., qualitative or quantitative), play in actual research practice.

Empirical studies attempting to open the 'black box' of the practice of operational research (OR) are beginning to appear in the literature, particularly within the area known as behavioural OR. Many scholars within this community share a commitment to both empirically investigate what OR practitioners and users actually do when engaged in OR-supported processes, and evaluate what the effect of these 'doings' is. Despite these developments, we still know very little about the complexities and situated specifics of OR practice as it happens on the ground. This is mostly due to the methodological challenges involved in treating real-time OR practice as an analytical problem, which requires making OR practice 'visible' by bringing to the fore its material and interactional features for close examination. In this paper we adopt ethnomethodology as one way to address this challenge. Using an empirical vignette drawn from a facilitated modelling workshop in which causal mapping was used with a top management team, we illustrate how an ethnomethodologically-informed perspective can reveal the ways in which OR-supported activity is practically accomplished by those involved, moment by moment, and with what effects. We conclude the paper by summarising the contribution that these kinds of fine-grained studies of OR practice make to the behavioural OR agenda, and outline some potentially useful avenues for future research.